Check the local vision setup

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

The description adds concrete behavioral details—exactly what it checks (Ollama, vision model, poppler)—beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention potential side effects, but the annotation already establishes it as read-only. It could be more explicit about output format, but the described reporting behavior is clear.

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 two sentences: first states the functional output, second gives usage guidance. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to understand.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and simple diagnostics, the description provides sufficient context: what it reports, when to call it, and its relationship to siblings. It is complete enough for an agent to decide to use it and understand its high-level behavior.

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 for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and usage, which indirectly clarifies the empty schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly defines what is reported: Ollama reachability, vision model pulled status, and poppler installation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools read_image and read_pdf by making it a diagnostic tool rather than a content reader.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Call this first when read_image or read_pdf fails.' This provides a clear trigger and implies that read_image/read_pdf are the primary tools, with this tool serving as a troubleshooting step. No alternative is needed beyond the siblings already listed.

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