list_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering but does not cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'available' entails (e.g., permissions-based). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely 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 extremely concise—just one sentence—and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 (listing models with filtering), no annotations, and an output schema that likely handles return values, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details and usage context, but the presence of an output schema mitigates some need to explain returns, keeping it at a minimally adequate level.

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 description adds some meaning by mentioning 'filter by keyword,' which hints at the 'filter' parameter's purpose, but does not explain 'include_custom' or provide details beyond the schema's basic titles. With 0% schema description coverage, this partial compensation is minimal, aligning with the baseline for moderate value addition.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available Odoo models'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_model_fields' or 'search_read' that might also involve models, leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded toolset.

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 minimal guidance with 'Optionally filter by keyword,' but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., vs. 'get_model_fields' for field details or 'search_read' for records). This lack of context makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.

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