check_llm_status

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

No annotations provided. The description indicates a read-only check operation, but does not describe behavior like timeout, error handling, or what constitutes 'reachable'. However, it is not misleading.

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 that conveys the full purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the expected return value format (e.g., boolean or status object), but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose. With zero parameters, baseline is 4.

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 tool checks if a local llama.cpp server is running and reachable. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('local llama.cpp server'). This purpose is distinct from sibling tools (generate_diagram, list_diagrams).

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 explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. The context implies usage before other server-dependent tools, but the description does not state this. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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