pbi_diagnose

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It transparently explains the 5-step pipeline, including automatic selection of the latest failed refresh if no refresh_id is provided. It also mentions classification and PBIP source code hints. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a numbered pipeline list, and an Args section. Each part adds value without redundancy. It is concise given the complexity of the diagnostic process.

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 (5 steps) and the presence of an output schema (implies return structure), the description is complete. It covers the diagnostic workflow, parameter behavior, and return type. Minor omission: no example or additional context on error classification.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds context: workspace_id and dataset_id are described as 'The workspace (group) ID' and 'The dataset ID'; refresh_id is explained as optional with auto-pick behavior. This is adequate but could include more detail like format or constraints.

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: 'One-shot diagnostic report for a Power BI dataset refresh failure.' It details a specific pipeline, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_refresh_dataset (triggers refresh) and pbi_dataset_info (general info). The verb 'diagnose' and resource 'refresh failure' are specific.

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 when diagnosing a refresh failure but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives among siblings or prerequisites, though it notes the optional refresh_id parameter behavior.

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