diagnose_odoo_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds 'without executing it', reinforcing the non-execution nature. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details like authentication requirements or what exactly 'diagnose' returns. The description provides some added context but is not rich beyond annotations.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it omits essential information. It does not front-load key details like what 'diagnose' entails or parameter hints. While brevity is valued, here it sacrifices utility.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the output (though an output schema exists, the agent cannot infer its content from the description). The description lacks context about typical use cases, what constitutes a 'diagnosis', or how it differs from other diagnostic tools like 'diagnose_access'.

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?

The input schema has 10 parameters (2 required) but 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention any parameters or explain their meaning, purpose, or relationships. For example, 'model', 'method', 'args', 'kwargs' are not described. This is a critical gap that forces agents to guess parameter semantics.

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: 'Diagnose an Odoo model call without executing it'. It uses a specific verb 'diagnose' and identifies the resource 'Odoo model call'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'execute_method' by emphasizing 'without executing'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools (e.g., 'execute_method', 'diagnose_access') or provide context such as prerequisites or limitations. Agents must infer usage solely from the short statement.

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