ollama_ensure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key branch (starts serve only if the binary exists; otherwise falls back to manual) and the next step, but says nothing about idempotency, safety of repeated calls, or the shape of the response.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the caveat and next step. Efficient, though 'FULL-тир' is unexplained shorthand.

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-param, no-output-schema tool the description covers the main behavior and failure path, but leaves 'FULL tier' undefined and does not state prerequisites or how to verify the result afterward.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema for the description to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it brings up the FULL tier by starting `ollama serve` when the binary exists. It also distinguishes itself from the `ollama_pull` sibling by naming it as the follow-up step, though the jargon 'FULL-тир' is never defined.

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?

Gives a sequencing hint ('Потом ollama_pull') and a fallback condition (first binary install is manual, will return to manual), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the `ollama_status` alternative for checking state.

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