build_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds 'validated,' implying some checking of conditions, but does not explain other behavioral aspects like whether it returns a string or list, or any constraints. Since annotations cover the key safety traits, the description adds minimal extra behavioral clarity.

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 with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and input. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has three parameters, one required, and an output schema, yet the description does not explain any of the parameters beyond a vague reference to conditions. It lacks details on how the logical operator or fields metadata influence the output. Even with annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that constructs complex domains.

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 must compensate for explaining parameters. It only mentions 'structured conditions,' which vaguely maps to the 'conditions' parameter, but completely omits the 'fields_metadata' and 'logical_operator' parameters. Without any elaboration on how these parameters affect domain construction, parameter semantics are severely under-explained.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Build a validated Odoo domain from structured conditions.' The verb 'build' and resource 'Odoo domain' are specific, and the mention of 'validated' adds a unique aspect. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_records, which perform queries, whereas this constructs a domain filter.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when it is appropriate to build a domain, or suggest any alternative tools. The single sentence is purely declarative without usage context.

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