odoo_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the default compact output format with an example, warns that field names change between versions, and notes that the detailed form exceeds 20,000 tokens. These are valuable behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide a format example and usage caveats. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 low schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description covers most important aspects: output format, version sensitivity, and token size warning. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the unmentioned writable_only parameter keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of name_contains (filter) and detail (only for labels/selection values), and model is implied by the tool name/title. However, the writable_only parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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 the tool returns 'Champs d'un modele' (fields of a model), which clearly identifies the resource. It distinguishes this from siblings by noting it should be consulted before any write operation, implying it provides field metadata. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', so it's slightly less than 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 explicitly says to use this tool 'AVANT toute ecriture' (before any writing), providing clear timing context. It also gives practical tips for filtering with name_contains and for using detail=true only for specific cases. It doesn't name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough to know when to invoke it.

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