odoo_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method, the lack of API key requirement, and the expected response structure ({ version, version_info }). This is sufficient for a simple connectivity check, though it does not mention error behavior or idempotency, which are minor omissions for a GET endpoint.

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 that front-loads the endpoint, method, and purpose. Every word adds value, with no extraneous information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only connectivity check, the description provides the endpoint, authentication requirement, and return fields. With no output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. The low complexity means no additional context is needed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics (100% coverage vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter-specific details since none exist.

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 a specific verb (GET) and resource ({ODOO_URL}/web/version) with an explicit purpose of connectivity checking. It distinguishes from the sibling tool odoo_call by indicating this is a dedicated version/connectivity endpoint rather than a general call tool.

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 implies usage for connectivity checks and indicates no API key is needed, which is helpful context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling odoo_call suggests a clear separation of concerns for version checks versus general calls.

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