get_model_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, clearly indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description does not contradict these and adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, or return behavior).

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?

Single sentence of 9 words is concise and front-loaded. However, it could include more detail without losing conciseness. It is efficient but lacks sufficient content for a multi-param tool.

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?

With 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what field metadata includes, how parameters are used (e.g., field_names filtering, relevance, max_fields limit, instance selection), or the structure of the return. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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% (5 parameters, none described in schema). The description provides no information about any parameter (model, field_names, relevance, max_fields, instance). This is a critical gap; the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Get field metadata for a specific Odoo model' uses a specific verb (Get) and clearly indicates the resource (field metadata) and scope (specific Odoo model). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_models or inspect_model_relationships.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its usage for retrieving field metadata but does not mention when not to use it or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like schema_catalog or inspect_model_relationships could overlap, but no differentiation is given.

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