pbi_dataset_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return structure but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, authorization needs, or side effects (though likely read-only). For an info tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement, then Args and Returns sections. It is well-structured and front-loads the key value proposition. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args section could be more integrated.

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 (aggregating multiple sub-objects), the description adequately lists all returned components (dataset, datasources, gateways, schedule, impacted_reports, pbip_locate). With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. It is complete for diagnostics but lacks mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides one-line definitions ('The workspace (group) ID', 'The dataset ID'), which adds basic meaning but no validation, format, or constraint details beyond the parameter names. This is minimal compensation.

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 'Aggregate dataset metadata + datasources + bound gateways + refresh schedule + impacted reports.' This specific verb 'Aggregate' and enumeration of resources precisely define what the tool does, distinguishing it from siblings like pbi_list_datasets (which lists datasets) and pbi_refresh_dataset (which refreshes).

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 says 'Useful for diagnostics and context-gathering' and explains it avoids multiple round-trips, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternative tools like pbi_list_datasets for listing vs. detailed info.

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