odoo_fields_get

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, so the description is not required to repeat that. The description adds the context that it calls fields_get, but it does not disclose return shape, behavior on invalid models, or other operational details beyond the annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the key differentiator ('field metadata') comes first.

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 simple two-parameter introspection tool with full schema coverage and strong safety annotations, the definition is largely complete. The main gaps are no mention of what fields_get returns and no guidance on the 'attributes' parameter behavior when omitted, but these are minor for an agent selecting and invoking this 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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'model' and 'attributes' already documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond restating that this is about field metadata, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('field metadata for an Odoo model') and names the underlying method (fields_get). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are CRUD/data operations rather than metadata introspection.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for inspecting model schema/field metadata rather than reading or mutating records. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion guidance.

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