pbi_generate_technical_documentation

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

The description discloses that output is saved to outputs/ and includes the audit scoring, providing some context about side effects. Annotations are all false and unhelpful, so the description carries the burden; it does not mention whether the tool modifies the model/report or if there are prerequisites, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose and output location, and efficiently lists the documentation contents without redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter generation tool, the description adequately covers what is produced (model, report, audit) and where. It could mention prerequisites like a selected model or open report, but the output schema likely covers return details, making the description reasonably complete.

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 empty schema provides no semantic information. The description's focus on what the documentation includes effectively compensates for the lack of parameters, meeting the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 generates complete technical documentation in Markdown, listing specific contents (model, report, audit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_document_model and pbi_document_report_layout by being comprehensive and including the audit score.

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?

Usage is implied through the word 'complete' and the enumerated contents, suggesting it is the all-in-one documentation option. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_document_model or pbi_audit_project, nor provide exclusions.

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