pbi_audit_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that findings include evidence and that no heuristic is presented as certainty, adding useful behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires an active model, or has other side effects.

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, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful detail without redundancy. It effectively covers the key aspects in a compact format.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description adds field details and evidence behavior. However, the missing explanation of the 'source' parameter and lack of prerequisites (e.g., model selection) leave gaps in full contextual completeness.

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 description partially compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining 'rules' as a subset of rules and listing allowed values for 'min_severity'. However, the 'source' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning unclear.

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 audits the semantic model with stable identifier rules, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_audit_project and pbi_audit_report_only by focusing on the model-level audit.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references pbi_list_audit_rules for rule details, but does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to similar audit/analysis tools.

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