get_model_fields

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description explicitly lists the returned field attributes. It does not mention errors, permissions, or rate limits, but for a schema inspection tool, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no fluff. The example is valuable and the filtering instruction is directly actionable. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema, but the description already explains what is returned (field attributes) and how to constrain the result. With only 2 parameters and a clear example, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to choose and invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps like optional parameter behavior are covered by schema defaults.

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. It explains the `fields` parameter ('limit the result to specific field names') and provides a concrete example value for `model` ('res.partner'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definitions, though it does not formally define the model parameter's semantics or the array format for fields.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect the schema of an Odoo model.' It also enumerates what is returned (label, type, help text, requiredness, relation), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_records (data) or list_models (model names).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need schema/field information. It gives an example model, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like search_read or read_records are not referenced, but the purpose is unambiguous enough.

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