MCP Odoo Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists attachments but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), how it handles invalid expense_ids, if results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff and uses clear formatting. The only minor inefficiency is the lack of integration between the prose and structured parts, but overall it's appropriately sized for a simple 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about behavioral traits (e.g., error handling) and usage guidelines, which are important even for simple tools. The output schema reduces the burden, but more completeness would be beneficial.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'expense_id', explaining it's the ID of the expense whose attachments are listed. With 0% schema description coverage (schema only provides title and type), this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's role. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., integer range) or provide examples.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'attachments for an expense', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_expense_attachment' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_expenses'), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid expense_id), compare it to similar tools like 'list_expenses', or specify use cases (e.g., reviewing attachments before approval). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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