omlx_models

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions checking health and listing models, but does not explicitly state whether this is read-only or if it has side effects. The behavior is implied to be safe but not fully disclosed.

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 extremely concise, one sentence, and directly conveys the purpose without fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured for a simple diagnostic tool.

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?

The description is sufficient for a tool with no parameters and no output schema. It tells the agent what the tool does. A minor gap is the lack of detail on what 'health' includes, but overall it is complete enough for its simplicity.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema is empty and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details. Trivially complete for this dimension.

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 health by listing available models and the resolved OCR model. This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools (inspect_pdf, ocr_pdf), which focus on PDF operations.

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 the tool is for checking model health but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. No direct guidance is provided, though the context suggests it is a diagnostic/read-only tool.

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