pbi_list_measures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Lista' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, and the listed output fields describe what the call returns. It does not mention all side-effect details, but for a list operation this 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It immediately states the action and the key output attributes, making it highly scannable.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description adequately communicates the return contents. However, it omits any explanation of the 'source' parameter, and given many sibling tools, a note about scope (e.g., current selected model) would improve completeness.

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 input schema has one parameter ('source') with no schema description and 0% coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, leaving its meaning and valid values completely unspecified.

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 a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('medidas') and explicitly names the output fields (tabla, expresion DAX, formato, descripcion y carpeta). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like pbi_list_tables and pbi_list_partitions.

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 when you need to list measures, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools such as pbi_list_tables or pbi_validate_measures. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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