odoo_modules

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

It discloses that output is filtered to errors/warnings and points to an alternative for the full log. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does not disclose potential side effects of update/install/frontend actions (e.g., project mutation, server restart), which is a notable gap for a mutating tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes distinct information: the action set/modules requirement and the output filtering/fallback behavior.

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?

Covers the action set, modules requirements, and output behavior including a fallback for full logs. It is largely sufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, though it leaves 'frontend' undefined and does not describe success/error return shapes.

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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying action-dependent requirements for modules (required for update/install/frontend; optional for test = all), which is not fully captured in the schema. testTags is left to the schema, but the added semantics justify a 4.

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 identifies the operation (Update/install/test) and the resource (Odoo modules in the active project), and enumerates the valid action values. It falls short of 5 because 'frontend' is not explained, leaving some ambiguity about what that action does.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use odoo_info action=logs when the full log is needed, and clarifies when modules is required vs optional by action. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus odoo_server or odoo_project.

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