Local Coder Health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, reducing the need to restate safety. The description adds useful scoping about connectivity and model availability, but does not clarify whether local state is queried or what 'resource settings' means. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler and a front-loaded verb and subject. It efficiently lists the checked dimensions without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a zero-parameter health check with strong annotations, the description is largely complete: an agent knows what is being checked and that it is safe/idempotent. Minor gaps are the lack of return-value description and the slightly ambiguous 'resource settings' wording, but these are low-risk for a simple health-check 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 documentation burden. Schema coverage is effectively 100% and the description adds no further parameter detail because none is needed.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Check') and concrete resources: Ollama connectivity, adaptive model availability, and resource settings. It is distinguishable from the execution/workspace siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named local_coder_telemetry.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as local_coder_telemetry or when a health check is prerequisite to other operations. The intended usage is only implicitly derivable from the description's function.

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