pbi_list_relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'lista' strongly implies a read-only operation, and it states what data is covered. However, it does not explicitly disclose that it performs no modifications or mention any limitations, permissions, or side effects. It adds some behavioral context but leaves safety implicit.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and includes meaningful detail about the returned data. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values are presumably covered), the description omits critical context about the 'source' parameter, which is likely important for selecting between live and project models in this Power BI toolset. The description is too terse to fully guide an agent in a complex environment with many sibling tools.

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 a default of 'live' and zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so the agent has no indication what values are accepted or what 'live' means. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, making the parameter essentially a mystery.

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 relationships and enumerates the specific attributes returned (tables/columns, cardinality, cross filter, status). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling list 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?

The description implies usage when relationship metadata is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_set_relationship_direction or pbi_list_tables. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, so it rests at implied usage.

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