odoo_presentation_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content (menu paths, checkbox clicks, hook phrases) but not the tool's behavior such as whether it reads a journal, side effects, return format, or limitations. This is only a high-level product description without practical behavioral disclosure.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core idea, using two sentences. It's efficient and contains no fluff, though it's under-specified. The structure is clean, but the brevity contributes to the overall inadequacy.

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 has three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and relies on an output schema, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain how the journal is used, what the path parameters do, or what output format to expect, making it incomplete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has three parameters (path, format, journal_path) with zero descriptions, and the description doesn't mention any of them. The agent cannot infer what these parameters mean or how to populate them, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of detail.

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 indicates the tool provides a meeting demonstration sequence, screen by screen, inferred from prior actions, including exact menu paths and checkbox clicks. It identifies the resource and output, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools such as odoo_demo_questionnaire.

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 for meetings ('a suivre en reunion') and mentions the sequence is derived from what has been done, suggesting it should be used after prior actions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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