fit_gap_report

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether it requires a live Odoo connection or what happens if requirements are missing. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is acceptable.

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, concise sentence with no excess verbiage. However, it lacks structure such as bullet points or separate sections. It is appropriately sized for the tool's core purpose but could be more informative without being verbose.

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 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the role of each input, the expected output (despite an output schema existing), or any constraints. The description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, yet the description offers no explanation for the six parameters (e.g., 'available_models', 'business_context'). The agent must infer semantics from parameter names alone, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'available_fields' could mean any fields or specific ones). The description fails to compensate 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.

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: classifying Odoo requirements into fit/gap buckets. It uses a specific verb ('classify') and a clear resource ('Odoo requirements'), and the output buckets are implied by the tool name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_records' or 'build_domain'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool would be inappropriate. Given the lack of explicit usage instructions, the agent must rely on common sense.

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