detect_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (does not load the registry), but omits details about read-only nature, filesystem access, permissions, output format, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in one sentence. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but is brief and not overly verbose. It earns its place without unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and a key differentiator. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs sibling tools), details about what 'structure' entails, and any cautionary notes. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 schema has one parameter with no description, and the description's Args section adds only 'Path to the Odoo project root,' which is a marginal clarification over the parameter name 'Project Path.' No examples, constraints, or additional semantics are provided, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description barely compensates.

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 a specific action ('Detect an Odoo project's structure') with a distinguishing qualifier ('without loading the registry'). This differentiates it from sibling tools that operate on the registry, such as list_models and dump_registry.

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 a clear use case: lightweight inspection of project structure without touching the registry. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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