analyze_odoo_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that addon_path enforces sandboxed file access, which is useful, but it does not state whether the tool only reads files, what permissions are required, or what the analysis returns. This is partially adequate but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 front-loads the purpose and checks, then provides a compact Args section. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose relative to the two parameters.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain both operational safety and return behavior. It covers purpose and parameters well but never describes what analyze returns (e.g., list of issues, severity, or success indicator) and gives no explicit sibling routing, leaving an agent without key invocation context.

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, and it does: file_path is documented as an absolute or relative path to a .csv or .xml security file, and addon_path is documented as an optional containing addon directory used for sandbox enforcement. Both parameters gain 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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (Odoo security file), enumerates the checks (syntax, headers, model prefixes, rules), and names the relevant file types. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools that target errors, XML views, Python models, or manifests.

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 implies use on security files but does not explicitly say when to choose this over inspect_odoo_module, validate_odoo_manifest, or other siblings, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is inferable from the file-type scope, but guidance is not explicit.

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