pbi_list_audit_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Catalog' implies a read-only listing operation, and it mentions the returned content (domain and severity), but it does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects or any prerequisites. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks thoroughness.

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 single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes relevant details about the output content, making it highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the tool's purpose and the fields of interest. It does not explain usage context, but that is not essential given the simplicity, and the output schema handles return value details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by indicating what the returned data includes (domain and severity), which partially compensates for the lack of schema details.

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 is a catalog of available audit rules with domain and severity, which identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like pbi_list_autofix_rules by specifically mentioning 'audit rules,' though it does not explicitly use the verb 'list' from the name.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_audit_project or pbi_list_autofix_rules. The description simply states what the tool is, with no context on when it should be invoked.

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