ollama_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Без падений' hints at a stable, non-destructive read but it never states read-only semantics, side effects, or what the result looks like. It doesn't explain what a passing vs. failing state means or what fields it returns.

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 compact sentence with the subject (FULL-tier state) front-loaded and the two checked conditions enumerated. Zero waste.

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 simple health-check tool the description covers what is being examined, but without an output schema it should at least imply the shape of the answer (a boolean running flag, a download flag) or point to the ensure/pull tools for remediation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning needs to be conveyed and none is missing.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the status of the FULL tier, checking whether ollama is running and whether bge-m3 is downloaded. This clearly distinguishes a read-out from the sibling write-oriented tools ollama_ensure and ollama_pull, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and the description never references the obvious alternatives ollama_ensure or ollama_pull (which are the remediation actions for whatever this status reports). The agent must infer the check-then-fix workflow entirely on its own.

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