pbi_list_partitions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the results are organized by table and include storage mode and origin, which is useful but not extensive. No behavioral traits like requiring a selected model or response structure are disclosed, but the annotation covers the most critical aspect (read-only).

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or repetition, and all words contribute meaning. This is an example of efficient writing without being under-specified.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the core function but leaves the 'source' parameter unexplained, which is a completeness gap. Given the low complexity, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 optional parameter 'source' with a default value but no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain the 'source' parameter at all, leaving its meaning and accepted values ambiguous. This is a significant gap since the description must compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 lists partitions grouped by table, including storage mode and origin. The verb 'list' and resource 'partitions' are specific, and the detail 'by table (storage mode and origin)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_list_tables or pbi_set_storage_mode.

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 see partitions with their storage mode and origin. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The implied context provides some guidance but lacks explicit alternatives.

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