pbi_list_autofix_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (rules and their correction details) but does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, requires a selected model, or has any side effects. For a list tool, some of this is implied, but the description does not confirm safety or behavior.

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 (in Spanish) that states the object and its detail in under ten words. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('reglas que tienen correccion automatica') and contains no filler or repetition.

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 simple, parameterless list tool, the description adequately explains the purpose and content. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's job. It could mention whether the list is global or model-specific, but given the tool name and sibling context, the current level is sufficient. Slightly more context about the correction types would push it to 5.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies here since the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter 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 identifies the resource (autofix rules) and states the scope: only rules that have automatic correction. It distinguishes from the sibling pbi_list_audit_rules by narrowing to 'correccion automatica'. However, the description is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase like 'List...', so it slightly underuses the directness of the tool 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list suggests it is the go-to for autofix rules, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over pbi_list_audit_rules or pbi_plan_audit_fixes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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