odoo_ping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool checks connectivity and returns the Odoo version, which is useful. However, it does not mention failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the instance is unreachable), error types, or whether the operation has any side effects. For a simple ping, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action (verify connectivity) and the expected return (version) efficiently.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns (the Odoo version). There is no additional context an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly. The only possible additions would be failure behavior details, but these are not essential for a simple ping.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are no parameters to document. It correctly implies a call with no arguments, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 purpose with specific verb and resource: 'Verifica conectividad con la instancia Odoo configurada' (verifies connectivity with the configured Odoo instance). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only connectivity/health-check tool among a set of CRUD/list operations. The added 'devuelve su versión' (returns its version) further clarifies its output.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident: it is a connectivity check with no parameters, so usage is implied for verifying connection before other Odoo operations. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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