pbi_get_object

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

Annotations already signal read-only behavior (readOnlyHint: true), and the description adds meaningful detail beyond that: it explains that measures include DAX references and that columns require a specific bracket syntax. This goes beyond the basic safety profile and clarifies the output contents.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent two sentences deliver specific, non-redundant usage details. Every sentence earns its place, achieving high information density without clutter.

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 output schema exists (avoiding the need to detail return values) and the read-only annotation covers safety, the description is largely complete for the tool's complexity. It explains the main parameters and a special behavior (measure DAX references). The only gap is the undocumented 'source' parameter, but overall it offers enough context for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'kind' values (table/column/measure) and the naming format for columns. However, the 'source' parameter is left completely unexplained, and 'name' semantics are only partially implied through the column example. It adds value but does not fully replicate missing schema descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Devuelve un objeto del modelo con todo su detalle' (returns a model object with all its detail). It also enumerates the supported kinds (table, column, measure), which further clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling getters like pbi_get_visual or pbi_measure_dependencies.

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 a specific naming convention for columns ('Tabla[Columna]') but offers no when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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