get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation, implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a database.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it only minimally adequate.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'record_id' parameter and 'from any Odoo model' for the 'model' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'fields' parameter or provide details like format, constraints, or examples, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare 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 action ('Read'), the resource ('a single record'), and the scope ('from any Odoo model'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'search_read' or 'get_order_details', which might also retrieve records, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid model name or record ID), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'search_read' for multiple records or 'get_order_details' for specific models, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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