pbi_inspect_pbix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it does NOT convert or open Power BI Desktop. This clarifies the tool's non-invasive nature beyond the annotations, but it does not discuss edge cases like invalid paths or file access issues.

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 a concise, three-sentence paragraph in Spanish that front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs succinctly. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter explanation is cleanly separated at the end. No wasted words.

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 is a read-only inspection utility with a single parameter and an output schema (not shown). The description provides enough context about what the tool reports and when to use it, without needing to detail return structure. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence) but overall is complete relative to its simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter. It provides a clear definition ('ruta al archivo .pbix') that adds context to the bare schema title, explaining the parameter's role as the target file path. While minimal, it is sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 inspects a .pbix file without converting or opening Power BI Desktop. It specifies exactly what information is provided (format, data model type, page/resource/custom visual counts), making it distinct from sibling conversion and listing tools.

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 explicitly says it is for knowing what to expect before launching a conversion ('Sirve para saber que esperar antes de lanzar la conversion'). This gives clear usage context, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving a small gap.

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