odoo_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context, such as 'logs (tail the full odoo.log)' and 'addons-dir (active core source: _odoo18 or _odoo19)', and the verb 'inspect' signals a read-only intent. However, it does not disclose return formats, output types, or any potential side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists actions with useful parenthetical details. It is efficient and free of filler, though the pipe-separated style is somewhat dense and could be more readable.

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 small inspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main actions but leaves some return semantics unclear (e.g., what exactly config-path or project-config returns). The schema fills parameter gaps, but the overall tool context is adequate rather than complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description does not deeply explain parameters. The description adds minor clarifications (e.g., that addons-dir refers to _odoo18 or _odoo19 source), but it does not explain the 'lines' parameter or the 'project' parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Inspect the active project') and enumerates six concrete actions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like odoo_server or odoo_project, but the inspection-focused scope and action list make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (odoo_server, odoo_modules, odoo_project). The action list implies an inspection use case, but there are no exclusion criteria, no 'instead use X' statements, and no conditions for choosing this tool.

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