chat

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication needs. Minimal transparency.

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 a single short sentence, but it omits critical information. It is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value, but here it fails to cover essential aspects.

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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is vastly insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to structure the messages array. Completely inadequate for effective tool usage.

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 description adds no information about the parameters (model, messages, options). Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean or how to use them. The agent gets no help beyond parameter names.

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 action: sending a chat completion request to Ollama. It specifies the verb 'send' and the resource 'chat completion request'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'generate', which might have a similar purpose, reducing clarity.

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 guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate' or other sibling tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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