pbi_get_visual

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It lists the returned fields, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or permission requirements. The name 'get' implies a query, but without annotation support, the disclosure is moderate.

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 and well-structured, with a lead phrase defining the tool and a second sentence enumerating the returned data. No filler or redundant 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 presence of an output schema and a straightforward getter operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It lacks parameter guidance but covers the purpose and return contents well. The sibling context helps, though not mentioned. Overall, it is adequate for a visual detail retrieval tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain the 'page' and 'visual_id' parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent to infer how to identify the visual.

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 returns a complete and normalized definition of a visual, enumerating specific attributes (type, position, z-order, title, fields, measures, columns, format, filters, raw definition). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_list_visuals (listing) and pbi_get_object (generic) by specifying the full detail level.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description only defines what the tool returns, not when to choose it over other visual-related tools. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons.

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