get_model_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful return-content behavior (which action types are returned, that invisible conditions are included, and that CRUD access flags for the current user are returned), which implies a read-only, permission-scoped operation. However, it never explicitly states that it is side-effect-free, what permissions are required, or how results are scoped, so the behavioral picture is only partially painted.

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 content is delivered in a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble, and the primary output categories come first. It is somewhat dense with parentheticals (Python expression / Odoo 15/16 domain) but each detail earns its place by explaining return semantics.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both safety and returns; it handles the return side reasonably well but omits any explanation of the two parameters and the read-only safety profile. The combination of 0% param coverage and absent annotations leaves a meaningful gap for a model-introspection tool.

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% across two parameters. The description never mentions 'model' or 'action_id', so the agent gets no help on whether 'model' is a technical name, what 'action_id' narrows the result to, or whether it is optional. With two undocumented parameters and a bare schema, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('all actions available on a model') and enumerates the exact categories returned (server actions, report actions, form-view buttons, invisibility conditions, CRUD flags). This is far more specific than the name alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the close sibling get_available_actions or explain its relationship to execute_action, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer from context whether this introspection tool is meant to precede execute_action or how it differs from get_available_actions, which is a near-identical sibling name.

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