odoo_journal_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the report structure and the meaning of journal_path (a past session), but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, or what happens if no journal_path is provided. It also does not describe the output schema or error behavior, leaving several behavioral aspects unknown.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists parameter meanings. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant information. This is a model of efficient description writing.

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 an output schema and sits among journal-related siblings (journal_start, journal_chapter), but the description does not explain how this tool relates to those, nor does it clarify the `path` parameter. It lacks essential context such as whether a journal session must be active, how to obtain a journal_path, or the structure of the output. For a report-generation tool with three parameters, this is insufficiently 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the `format` parameter (html|markdown|both) and `journal_path` (session passée), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it completely omits the third parameter `path`, which has no description in the schema either, leaving one parameter undefined.

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 generates an intervention report presentable to a client, with synthesis, step-by-step breakdown, and before/after details. It specifies the output type and content, which is more specific than a generic 'report' tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like odoo_journal_note or odoo_journal_chapter, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 implies usage when a client-facing report is needed ('presentable au client') and explains the format options (html, markdown, both) and that journal_path refers to a past session. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, so the guidance is partially implied rather than explicit.

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