Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• odoo_model_infoA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 describes the tool as a read operation ('Get information', 'Retrieves'), which implies it's non-destructive and likely read-only, but doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The example shows output format, adding some behavioral context, but lacks details on what happens with invalid model names or other edge cases.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, details what information is retrieved, includes parameter and return type documentation, and provides a helpful example. The example is detailed but necessary for understanding output format. Minor verbosity in the example could be trimmed, but overall it's efficient.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and output format via example, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or performance characteristics. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what 'Formatted information' entails would be beneficial.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'model_name' is the 'Name of the Odoo model' and provides examples ('res.partner', 'sale.order'), clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of documentation.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about a specific Odoo model' and specifies what information is retrieved (description, table name, field definitions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_odoo_models' (which likely lists models rather than details) and 'execute_odoo_code' (which executes code). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the text itself.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage by providing an example with 'res.partner', suggesting it's for retrieving metadata about Odoo models. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_odoo_models' (for listing models) or 'reset_odoo_shell' (for resetting), leaving the agent to infer from context. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

• reset_odoo_shellA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it terminates the current process, clears the manager, and causes a new shell on next execution, which are crucial for understanding its impact. It also mentions the return type (str) and possible outcomes (success or error), adding valuable context beyond basic functionality.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core action and following with explanatory details. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the process, purpose, and return value without unnecessary words, making it efficient and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (a reset operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, why to use it, and the return type. However, it could be more explicit about potential side effects or dependencies, such as whether it affects other sessions or requires specific permissions, slightly limiting completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by focusing on the tool's action and effects, adding value without redundancy.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('reset', 'restart', 'terminates', 'clears') and resource ('Odoo shell session', 'shell process', 'global shell manager'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like execute_odoo_code, list_odoo_models, and odoo_model_info. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for clearing session state or recovering from errors'), which implies usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as whether execute_odoo_code might be preferred for certain tasks, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

• execute_odoo_codeA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 effectively describes key traits: the tool provides 'full access to Odoo models and environment', maintains 'persistent state between calls', and includes a warning that code 'can modify data' and should be used 'with appropriate caution'. This covers safety, statefulness, and permissions adequately.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on environment access, parameter/return notes, and warnings. Each sentence adds value (e.g., state persistence, safety warning), with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary code in a database environment), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and risks. However, it lacks details on error handling or output format specifics, which could be useful for an agent.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: the 'code' parameter is 'Python code to execute in the Odoo context', and it notes the 'env' variable is available. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail code format or examples.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('Execute Python code') and resource ('in an Odoo shell environment'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_odoo_models (listing) and reset_odoo_shell (resetting). It specifies the environment has 'full access to Odoo models and environment', making the purpose explicit and distinct.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for executing Python code in Odoo with ORM access. It mentions persistent state between calls, which implies usage for sequential operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using other tools for non-code tasks), though the sibling tools suggest different purposes.

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

• list_odoo_modelsA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool queries the Odoo registry, returns model names one per line, and has a 50-result limit to prevent overwhelming output. This covers important operational constraints that aren't in the schema.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details, parameter documentation, and important notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the parameter documentation uses clear Python-style formatting that's easy to parse.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a single-parameter query tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage, parameter semantics, return format, and important behavioral constraints (50-result limit). Nothing essential appears to be missing for an agent to understand and use this tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters5/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter's purpose ('pattern to filter model names'), type (str), and behavior ('case-sensitive', 'only models containing that pattern'). The return value is also clearly documented as 'List of model names, one per line'.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the specific action ('List available Odoo models') and resource ('Odoo models'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'execute_odoo_code' or 'odoo_model_info' which perform different operations. The optional filtering capability is explicitly mentioned, providing a complete picture of the tool's function.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to list models with optional pattern filtering) and implicitly contrasts with 'odoo_model_info' which likely provides detailed information about a specific model. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a perfect 5.

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