pbi_list_hierarchies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool lists but does not mention whether it is read-only, whether it operates on the currently selected model, or any potential side effects. The parameter 'source' is not addressed, leaving behavioral assumptions ambiguous.

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 that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. All words contribute meaning, with no redundant or extraneous 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?

Although there is an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a tool with an undocumented parameter. It does not explain the 'source' option, nor does it provide any guidance on model selection or prerequisites. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 schema has one parameter ('source') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage. This leaves the agent without guidance on what 'source' represents or how to set it.

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 the tool's function: 'Lists the hierarchies of the model with their levels and columns.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('hierarchies'), and the inclusion of 'levels and columns' clarifies the output scope. This distinguishes it from sibling 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 implies usage through its explicit focus on hierarchies, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It lacks direct comparison to sibling tools or contextual clues beyond the name itself.

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