pbi_list_perspectives

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it only works on the live layer, the TMDL reader will not return perspectives, and if none exist it returns an empty list with an explanation. This is useful context not available in annotations or schema.

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: three short sentences, each adding unique value (what it lists, the live-layer requirement, and the empty-list behavior). No redundant or filler 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers all critical context: purpose, operational constraint, and edge-case behavior. Nothing important 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?

The schema has one parameter ('source') with no description and 0% coverage, but the description's 'Requiere la capa EN VIVO' effectively tells the agent to use the 'live' source. This compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation, though it does not explicitly name the parameter.

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 starts with 'Lista las perspectivas del modelo', a specific verb ('lista') and resource ('perspectivas del modelo'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other model objects like tables, measures, or roles.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Requiere la capa EN VIVO' (requires the LIVE layer) and explains that the TMDL reader cannot extract perspectives. This gives clear context and a constraint, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other layers.

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