odoo_journal_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool traces each write with the state before modification, enabling the report, and mentions that titre and objectif appear in the header. However, it doesn't mention side effects, required permissions, or how the journal is stored/closed, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes: purpose, process, and parameter roles. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, timing, and the role of two parameters. It doesn't need to explain return values because an output schema exists. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., connection state) and potential misuse scenarios, which could be more complete given the lack of annotations.

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 adds meaning to 'titre' and 'objectif' by stating they appear in the report header, but 'path' is not mentioned at all. Thus, two of three parameters are semantically enriched, but the unexplained path keeps this from being a strong score.

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's function: 'Ouvrir un journal d'intervention' (open an intervention journal) and specifies it must be used before any writes. It distinguishes itself from sibling journal tools (chapter, note, report) by establishing its role as the starting point.

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 instructs to use the tool 'AVANT toute ecriture' (before any writing), giving a clear temporal context for when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools but implies the sequencing among journal tools, which is sufficient for most usage scenarios.

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