pbi_list_desktop_models

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the detection mechanism (detects the Analysis Services engine on localhost:<puerto>) and enumerating the return values (port, connection string, catalog, table count). It does not mention edge cases (e.g., what happens if no reports are open), but for a read-only discovery operation, the provided detail is sufficient.

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 two succinct sentences in Spanish. It front-loads the primary verb and resource, then briefly explains the detection approach and output fields. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the output schema handles detailed return structures, so nothing critical is missing.

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 correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' and clearly identifies the resource: 'modelos de Power BI Desktop abiertos localmente'. It also lists the concrete outputs (puerto, connection string, catalogo, nº de tablas), making the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like pbi_list_tables or pbi_test_connection.

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 implies usage: call this tool when you need to list locally open Power BI Desktop models and get their connection info. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use pbi_select_model to work with a specific model' or 'use pbi_test_connection to validate connectivity'. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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