odoo_fields

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

The description indicates a non-destructive, read-only operation (introspecting fields). With no annotations provided, the description adequately conveys that it is safe to call. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or response behavior beyond listing attributes.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that cover the function and usage context without any extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover essential behavioral and parameter details. It explains the purpose and usage context adequately but lacks detail on parameter values and return format. For a simple introspection tool, it is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 has two parameters: 'model' (undocumented in schema) and 'attributes' (described as 'Which field attributes to return'). The description mentions 'names, types, labels, relations' as possible returns, but does not clarify valid values for the 'attributes' parameter or the format of the 'model' parameter. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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: 'Introspect a model's fields — names, types, labels, relations.' This specifies the verb (introspect), resource (model's fields), and the type of information returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling data-retrieval tools like odoo_read and odoo_search_read, which operate on records rather than field metadata.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful before querying an unfamiliar model.' This implies the tool is for preliminary investigation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using odoo_list_models for model discovery.

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