ollama_health_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a health check and provides diagnostics, but doesn't describe what specific diagnostics are included (e.g., server status, version, connectivity), whether it has side effects (e.g., pinging the server), or any rate limits or permissions required. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function ('Check Ollama server health and provide diagnostics'). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on diagnostics content or behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally specify what 'health' and 'diagnostics' include to be more complete, but it meets the bare minimum for this simple context.

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 has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately avoids redundant information. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('check', 'provide diagnostics') and identifies the target resource ('Ollama server health'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'system_resource_check' (general system) and 'test_model_responsiveness' (model-specific), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more precise about what 'health' entails.

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?

The description implies usage when health diagnostics are needed, such as before operations or troubleshooting. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'system_resource_check' (which might overlap) or 'start_ollama_server' (which might be a prerequisite). Usage is contextually implied but lacks clear when/when-not directives or named alternatives.

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