get_model_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the return values and the effect of the `fields` parameter. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but as a read-only inspection tool, this is acceptable.

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 two parameters and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the optional parameter, and an example. The output schema exists, so return structure is handled. Minor gap: no explicit mention of the output schema contents, but the description lists key fields.

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 adds meaning. It explains the `fields` parameter (limits to specific field names) and provides an example model for the `model` parameter. This compensates for the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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 inspects an Odoo model's schema and lists the returned field properties (label, type, help text, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_models (which lists model names) and search_read (which reads records).

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 explains usage with an example and notes the optional `fields` parameter for filtering. While it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, the context of schema inspection is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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