pbi_audit_report_only

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the specific audit checks (empty pages, untitled visuals, broken fields, duplicates, canvas sizes, page geometry) and scope exclusions, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention any prerequisites or side effects. The word 'audita' implies read-only but is not explicit.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence states the main action and key exclusion; the second sentence efficiently enumerates the covered audit areas. No redundant information is present.

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 zero parameters and a reported output schema, the description adequately defines the tool's scope and the specific checks it performs. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention prerequisites such as whether a PBIR report must be open or connected, but this is minor and likely covered by the broader tool context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters.

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 and resource: 'Audita solo el informe PBIR' (audit only the PBIR report). It explicitly excludes semantic model rules, distinguishing it from model-focused audit siblings like pbi_audit_model.

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 'solo' and 'sin las reglas del modelo semantico' provide clear context that this is for report-only auditing, not model auditing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or elaborate on when-not-to-use conditions beyond the semantic model exclusion.

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