pull_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call runs as a background job, returns a job_id, and that progress is polled via get_job. It omits expected duration, failure modes, and whether re-pulling an existing model overwrites it.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the async behavior and follow-up tool. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, the ollama constraint, the async return (job_id), and the polling path, which is the key information for a two-parameter tool with no output schema. Minor gaps around the undocumented provider parameter and failure handling remain.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: model is documented in the schema, while provider is not. The description compensates by giving the model-name format example ('qwen2.5-coder:7b') and implying provider meaning through the ollama restriction, so it edges above baseline but doesn't fully explain the provider parameter's accepted values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download a model') and scopes it to ollama providers, which separates it from generic siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool download_model, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

'Only for ollama providers' gives one usage condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus download_model, the obvious alternative, nor any notes on prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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