pbi_generate_technical_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output location (outputs/), format (Markdown), and the composition of the document (model details, page-by-page visuals, audit scores). This gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool produces and where it writes, though it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior or prerequisites.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose and output location, then lists the informative components. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Although an output schema exists (which covers return values), the description supplies important contextual details about the document's structure and storage location. It sufficiently explains what the tool does and what is included, making it complete enough for a zero-parameter documentation generator. Minor gaps like the exact meaning of 'dominio' are acceptable given the output schema likely clarifies them.

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 adds context about what the generated documentation contains, which is relevant for the tool's operation even though there are no parameters to explain. No further parameter-level detail is needed.

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 produces complete technical documentation in Markdown saved to outputs/. It enumerates specific content: model (tables, measures with DAX and dependencies), report page-by-page with visual fields, and audit scores by domain. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_document_model (model-only) and pbi_audit_* (audit-only).

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 when comprehensive documentation is needed—combining model, report, and audit—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It lacks a clear comparison to related siblings such as pbi_document_model or pbi_audit_report_only, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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