pbi_get_visual

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the exact content of the return payload, including the 'definicion cruda' for deeper inspection needs. This adds meaningful context about what the tool discloses and its completeness. It does not contradict the annotations and adds value beyond the simple read-only marker.

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 core purpose, and every word earns its place. It efficiently enumerates the returned fields without unnecessary elaboration. This is an exemplary model of concise, informative tool documentation.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the return value list is redundant but helpful. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves the description incomplete for an agent trying to invoke it correctly. For a simple read-only getter, it is adequate but has clear gaps in parameter and alternative guidance.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the two parameters (page, visual_id), and the description provides no explanation of their meaning, format, or constraints. This is a significant gap since the schema itself offers no help. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 returns a complete and normalized definition of a visual, listing specific attributes (type, position, Z-order, title, fields, filters, raw definition). This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like pbi_list_visuals, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'Devuelve' (returns) indicates the retrieval action, but it is slightly less direct than a verb-first description.

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 the tool is used when a full, normalized visual definition is needed, including raw inspection data. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_get_object or pbi_list_visuals, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but not fully developed.

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