odoo_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavior: "shell prints the command to open an interactive shell" rather than executing it. However, it does not mention side effects of start/stop/restart, permissions required, or failure behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 tool's purpose and then lists the action values inline. Every part contributes useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one required parameter with an enum) and no output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the actions and the special shell behavior; the only minor gap is not specifying prerequisites like whether the Odoo server must already be installed or how the active project is determined.

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 input schema only calls the parameter "action" and describes it as "What to do", with enum values provided. The description adds value by enumerating the allowed actions and clarifying the special behavior of the shell action, going beyond the schema's minimal documentation.

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 resource (Odoo server) and the action set (start, stop, restart, status, shell), using a specific scope: "for the active project". It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like odoo_modules and odoo_info by focusing on server lifecycle control rather than module or info operations.

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 when to use the tool by listing server-control actions and scoping to the active project, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. An agent can infer server administration is the intended use, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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