pbi_compare_live_to_pbip

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds behavioral detail by specifying that it lists tables and measures that exist only on one side and measures whose DAX differs. No contradictions with annotations; the description enriches the safety profile with specific comparison behavior.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second explains the use case and what it outputs. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 has no parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what is compared, what is listed, and when to use it. It is complete for its relatively simple scope and leaves no significant ambiguity about its behavior.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to provide parameter semantics, and the schema covers 100% of parameters (none), making this adequate.

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 it compares the live model with the TMDL on disk, which is a specific verb+resource+comparison. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on unsaved changes in memory versus the disk state, and explicitly mentions what it lists (tables, measures, DAX differences).

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 gives a clear use case: 'Util para saber si hay cambios en memoria sin guardar' (useful for knowing if there are unsaved changes in memory). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context of comparing live vs. disk is clear and sufficient.

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