analyze_odoo_xml_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the sandboxing behavior of addon_path ('to enforce sandboxed file access'), which is meaningful context, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive or what the analysis returns, leaving the safety and output profile undocumented.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a clean Args block. Every sentence contributes; only minor cost is docstring-style formatting rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs and the sandbox constraint, but it does not describe the shape of results (e.g., list of issues, severity) or confirm the read-only nature, which an agent needs to use it confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: xml_path is documented as absolute or relative to the XML file, and addon_path as an optional containing addon directory used to enforce sandboxed access. That adds semantics well beyond the bare string types, though it could still specify accepted formats or path resolution rules.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Analyze) and a specific resource (Odoo XML data or view file), plus enumerates the classes of issues it looks for (structural errors, suspicious references, common issues). It is clearly distinct from analyze_odoo_python_model, validate_odoo_manifest, and analyze_odoo_security by resource type, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 says what it analyzes but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative among the many analyze_* siblings. An agent must infer that this is the right tool purely from the resource type 'XML view'.

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