pbi_list_desktop_models

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the localhost Analysis Services detection, distinguishes engine_pid from desktop_pid, and documents the .pbip null path edge case. This adds meaningful behavioral context about what the tool detects and returns, without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides only relevant detail—return fields, PID distinction, and the null-path caveat. Each sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description covers all operational semantics an agent needs: it names the detection method, the returned fields, and the .pbip null behavior. The only minor omission—behavior when no models are open—is easily inferred from 'open locally.'

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description has no parameter burden to carry. It instead clarifies what each returned instance includes, which is appropriate for a parameter-less tool.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: lists locally open Power BI Desktop models. It then enumerates the exact fields returned (port, connection string, catalog, table count, identity details), clearly distinguishing this from sibling list tools like pbi_list_tables or pbi_list_measures.

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 clearly implies a discovery/read scenario—enumerating open local desktop models and their connection details—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear, yet exclusions and alternative tool routing are left implicit.

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