status_agente

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Mostra" implies a read-only inspection with no side effects, and it discloses the categories of data returned, but it says nothing about cost, latency, failure behavior (e.g., what happens when Ollama is down), or whether any permissions are needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the primary signal (is Ollama up) is placed first, followed by the secondary details. Every clause corresponds to something the tool actually reports.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description already previews the main outputs. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool this is close to sufficient; the only gap is the absence of any note on when to prefer it over simply proceeding with a model call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a parameterless schema is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing arguments that do not exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Mostra se o Ollama está no ar, os modelos instalados e quanto do PC está em uso" names a specific verb (Mostra) and three concrete pieces of information returned: Ollama availability, installed models, and machine resource usage. It is clearly a status/health-check tool, distinguishable from the browser, git, and window siblings by domain. It stops short of explicitly framing itself as a read-only diagnostic, which keeps it at 4.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many siblings. Usage is only implied by the content: an agent can infer it should call this to verify the local model runtime is available before invoking model-dependent tools, but the description never says so.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.