pbi_inspect_pbix

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint by emphasizing it does not convert or open Power BI Desktop, adding behavioral safety context beyond the annotation. It also discloses what information the inspection yields, which helps set expectations about the tool's output.

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 focused and front-loaded, opening with the essential non-destructive behavior, then summarizing outputs and use case, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value and the parameter note is not padding.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only inspection tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, what it detects, when to use it, and the exact parameter contract. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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, this description compensates well by explaining that `path` is the path to the .pbix file and the only valid parameter name, even noting why an alias like `pbix_path` is not accepted. It adds contract-level meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 immediately states a specific verb and resource: it performs a 'radiografia' of a .pbix without converting or opening it. It lists concrete outputs—report format ('pbir' vs 'layout'), model vs live connection, and counts of pages/resources/custom visuals—which clearly distinguishes it from conversion or editing tools in the sibling list.

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 the conversion, giving clear usage context. It does not list exclusions or compare itself to alternatives like pbi_convert_pbix_to_pbip, but the intended trigger situation is evident.

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