diagnose_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no disclosure about side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. It simply restates the purpose, not adding value beyond annotations.

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 of 10 words. It is concise and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. While it could benefit from more structure, it earns its place by being clear and brief.

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?

Despite having an output schema and rich annotations, the description is too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and many sibling tools. It doesn't explain the diagnostic context, any prerequisites, or how parameters interact. The description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description offers no explanation for any of the 9 parameters. For example, it doesn't describe what 'instance', 'operation', or 'include_rules' mean. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, making it very difficult for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Diagnose' and a clear resource 'ACL and record-rule visibility for an Odoo model', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'diagnose_odoo_call' or 'health_check'. The purpose is immediately clear and unique.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

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