health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific subsystems inspected, which is useful behavioral detail. Yet it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects (e.g., forcing a model load), or how long it might take. For a diagnostic tool, the checklist is helpful but leaves the safety and side-effect profile implicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the concrete checks and followed by the trigger condition. Every clause adds information; no filler. The structure makes it easy to scan for the tool's purpose and call condition.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain the return shape or at least characterize the response. It lists what is checked but does not say what the agent gets back (e.g., a report with per-check statuses). Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but leaves a notable gap around output interpretation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description correctly does not waste words on nonexistent parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('backend'), then enumerates exactly what is checked: Ollama reachable, model loaded, memory, free RAM, keep_alive policy, agent-cu installed. This is far more specific than a tautology. It references a sibling tool (look_at_screen) to disambiguate usage, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'ping', so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear context: use it 'before/after errors' and 'Call this first if look_at_screen returns OLLAMA_UNREACHABLE or MODEL_NOT_FOUND.' This specifies a trigger condition tied to a specific error code. However, it does not articulate when not to use it or how it relates to the sibling 'ping', so it is not fully exhaustive.

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