pbi_scheduled_refresh_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details scanning all refreshable datasets, checking the past 7 days, fallback behavior (shows most recent scheduled refresh if no refresh on target date), and the current_status snapshot. It also notes the error info source limitation. This is comprehensive and 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 well-structured with paragraphs covering overview, fallback behavior, a note on API, and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

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 (scanning multiple datasets, handling fallbacks, providing status snapshots) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, its effect (read-only), the return content (records and summary), and a notable limitation. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the format parameter ('json' or 'table'), the date parameter (optional, 'YYYY-MM-DD' in display timezone, defaults to today), and the workspace_id is implicitly understood. It could provide more explicit guidance on workspace_id format, but overall adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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: 'List scheduled refresh status for every dataset that had scheduled refreshes recently.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (scheduled refresh status), and scope (datasets in a workspace). This distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_refresh_dataset (triggers a refresh) and pbi_refresh_manage (manages schedules).

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 use cases (viewing scheduled refresh status, checking failures resolved by on-demand refreshes) and mentions a limitation (no Enhanced Refresh Details API for scheduled refreshes). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives, leaving some guidance implicit.

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