export_tour

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that clear=True empties the recording and advises reviewing generated selectors before committing. However, it does not state whether the tool writes files to disk, modifies the session in other ways, or requires any specific permissions. The side effect of clearing is covered, but broader behavioral context is missing.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and output types, followed by format options and the clear side effect. It is efficient and avoids fluff, but the structure could be improved by separating the parameter-specific details (format, clear) from the main purpose for better skimmability. It is not overly long and earns a strong score.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It explains format and clear but omits the meaning of url, login, and module, which are likely essential for targeting the correct Odoo instance and module. It also does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., that actions must be recorded first) or how the output will be delivered. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but input parameter clarity remains a significant gap.

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 provides some detail for 'format' (lists the allowed values) and 'clear' (explains its effect), but it does not explain 'name', 'url', 'login', or 'module'. Since only 'name' is required, these parameters are likely important for the export, but their meaning is left entirely to the schema property titles/defaults, which are insufficient without additional explanation.

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: converting session actions into an Odoo web_tour with concrete output types (JS file, HttpCase test, manifest asset line). It lists the specific action types it covers (open_menu, set_field, etc.) and names the output formats. This differentiates it from siblings like run_tour (which executes a tour) and the recording tools (open_menu, set_field).

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 after performing session actions ('Turn the actions performed in this session'), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the clear flag and formats but lacks explicit exclusions or guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., when a different export path is preferred). No sibling tool is named as an alternative.

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