pbi_list_partitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by describing read-only DMV and TMDL listing behavior. It adds useful behavioral context: the underlying sources (TMSCHEMA_PARTITIONS, TMSCHEMA_EXPRESSIONS), the fields returned, source-dependent differences, and the limitation that M text is not included.

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 compactly details each source mode. Every sentence adds distinct value: scope, live behavior, pbip behavior, and the pointer to pbi_get_power_query. 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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers input semantics, output scope, source-specific behavior, and the relevant sibling for missing M text. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no enum or description, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by explaining the two source values ('live' and 'pbip') and exactly what each returns.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista las particiones por tabla', naming exactly what is listed and its scope. It also distinguishes between two source modes ('live' and 'pbip') and points to pbi_get_power_query for M text, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for choosing source='live' vs source='pbip', describing what each reads and returns. It also explicitly routes agents to pbi_get_power_query when M text is needed: 'El texto M no viaja aqui: lo da pbi_get_power_query.'

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