analyze_upgrade_log

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., limitations, performance considerations). With annotations present, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and outcomes. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 three parameters (one required, two optional) and an output schema, the description provides a high-level goal but omits practical details like input constraints, expected version values, or output format. It is barely adequate for agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'log errors' without defining 'log_text' or explaining optional version parameters. The agent lacks details on expected input format or version syntax, which is insufficient for 0% coverage.

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: classifying Odoo upgrade log errors into three categories with fix suggestions. It uses a specific verb ('classify') and resource ('Odoo install/update log errors'), differentiating it from siblings like 'health_check' or 'upgrade_risk_report' which cover other aspects.

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 analyzing upgrade logs, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upgrade_risk_report' or 'scan_addons_source'. No explicit when-not or context for selection.

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