pbi_list_perspectives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical dependency ('Requiere la capa EN VIVO'), explains the reason, and states the edge-case behavior for empty results ('devuelve una lista vacia con la explicacion'). This is useful behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for the critical requirement, one for edge-case behavior. Each sentence provides new information without redundancy.

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 covers the purpose, key constraint (live layer), and empty-list behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke it, though it could benefit from a brief note on what perspectives are.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that the live layer is required, which directly ties to the 'source' parameter (default 'live'). It does not explicitly document parameter values, but the context makes the intended usage clear.

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 'Lista las perspectivas del modelo' (lists the model perspectives), using a specific verb and resource. It also notes the live-layer requirement, which 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?

It specifies when to use this tool: when needing perspectives and working with the live layer, since 'el lector TMDL de este proyecto no las extrae' (the TMDL reader does not extract them). This implies an alternative approach is not viable for perspectives. No explicit exclusions are named, but the context is clear.

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