build_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'validated', hinting at some validation behavior, but does not elaborate on what validation entails (e.g., type checking, field existence). Beyond annotations, little extra behavioral context is provided.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. While concise, it could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose. The structure is good but borderline too sparse.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema details in the description, the current text is inadequate. An agent would need to infer or guess the structure of conditions and the effect of logical_operator, making the tool less usable.

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%, meaning the description must compensate. However, it only mentions 'structured conditions' without explaining the format of the conditions array, the role of logical_operator, or how fields_metadata is used. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the parameter inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: building a validated Odoo domain from structured conditions. It uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('Odoo domain'), and differentiates from sibling tools like search_records that execute domains rather than construct them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it could mention that this tool is typically used before search_records or read_record to create a domain filter, but no such context is given.

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