Delegate a task to an Ollama model

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool runs in its own process with its own environment, so the user's Anthropic credentials and model settings are untouched. It also mentions that delegation mode is 'ondemand.' However, it does not detail what happens upon failure (e.g., if the Ollama model is unavailable) or the format of the returned job_id, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The description is structured with a clear first paragraph about the tool's function and a separate 'WHEN TO USE' section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second paragraph could be slightly more concise—it repeats the 'ON EXPLICIT REQUEST ONLY' instruction—and the policy enforcement sentence adds redundancy. Still, it is efficient overall.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the async nature, mentions sibling tools for follow-up, and includes usage boundaries. Some details about parameter interplay (e.g., wait_seconds vs. polling with delegate_status) or return value format are missing, but the description is functionally complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions using `prompt_file` for long prompts and lists a few sibling tools for polling/collection. It does not elaborate on parameter constraints or relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity of prompt and prompt_file).

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 the purpose: 'Start a headless Claude Code session backed by an Ollama model and return immediately with a job_id.' It identifies the resource (delegate session) and the action (start). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning polling with delegate_status, collecting with delegate_result, and continuing with delegate_followup, making differentiation clear.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'ON EXPLICIT REQUEST ONLY' and lists triggering phrases like 'delegate this', 'use ollama', 'ask qwen', etc. It also states when not to use: 'If the user has not asked for delegation, do the work yourself and do not offer this tool unprompted.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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