llama-server status

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

The description discloses that the tool reports on supervised processes and can probe a health endpoint for any server, including those not owned by bellows. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately conveys the read-only nature and scope.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides key details. No unnecessary 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?

Given the single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, including the types of information reported (pid, port, model, uptime) and the optional probe 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?

The description adds no new information about the 'port' parameter beyond what is already in the schema description (probing a health endpoint). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 reports supervised llama-server processes with specific details (pid, port, model, uptime) and optionally probes a health endpoint. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_server and stop_server by focusing on status.

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?

While the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, the sibling names and the tool's purpose imply it is for obtaining server status rather than starting/stopping. A slight improvement would be to include a direct usage note.

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