model_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-like operation ('Get') and lists the returned metadata, but it does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Odoo project, whether it scans filesystem). The behavior is understandable but not deeply transparent.

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 compact: a one-line summary followed by a structured Args list. It front-loads the core purpose and each argument earns its place with brief, relevant context. No redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what the parameters are, and what is returned (fields, inheritance, methods). The presence of an output schema means return semantics need not be elaborated. However, it could mention that it inspects the codebase and may be affected by excluded modules, which is a minor 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's Args block is essential. It provides meaningful explanations for each parameter, including the crucial detail that addons_paths is optional and auto-detected if omitted. This goes beyond the bare schema titles and effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could add examples or value formats.

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 'Get' and names the exact resource: 'full metadata for an Odoo model'. It further enumerates the contents (fields, inheritance, methods), making its function unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower aspects like 'field_info' or 'method_overrides', positioning this as the comprehensive metadata tool.

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 when a complete model overview is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like field_info or method_overrides. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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