analyze_odoo_error

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not what the analysis returns, not whether it is purely heuristic versus grounded in a knowledge base, not the expected size or format of the input, and no limits on error types supported. Only 'suggest troubleshooting steps' hints at the response shape.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The Args block largely restates the single schema property, so it earns little of its space, but nothing is bloated.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the minimum needed to call it, but leaves an agent guessing about the nature of the returned analysis and any constraints on input. A sentence on output form and scope would close the gap.

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%, but the description supplies an Args block defining error_text as the error message or traceback to investigate, which adds slight meaning over the schema's bare 'Error Text' title by implying full tracebacks are acceptable. It does not specify length limits, encoding, or what detail level produces the best results.

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?

States a specific verb (analyze) plus resource (Odoo error) and the added outcome (suggest troubleshooting steps). It is implicitly distinct from the sibling tools, which all inspect modules, manifests, views, models, or security, but the description never makes that separation explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase 'error message or traceback to investigate,' so an agent can infer this is the entry point when it has a concrete failure. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of when a sibling like analyze_odoo_python_model would be the better choice, and no prerequisites.

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