pbi_list_report_resources

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail by explaining the three resource categories and the real-world consequences of each mismatch (file not found, empty visual). This goes beyond the structured data and helps the agent understand what the tool surfaces and why.

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 two concise sentences plus a leading phrase. Every sentence provides meaningful information: what is listed, why the categories matter, and the fact that these issues are invisible. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, with an output schema that presumably documents the return structure), the description covers the essential context. It explains the purpose, the three resource categories, and the significance of each mismatch. No obvious gaps remain for a list-type tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; it correctly focuses on the tool's output categories instead.

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 report resources divided into three categories: declared, on disk, and mismatched. It uses a specific verb ('listar') and resource ('recursos del informe'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like pbi_list_report_pages or pbi_list_visuals by focusing on resource-level inconsistencies.

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 explains why the tool is useful: to surface invisible issues where undeclared files or orphaned declarations cause problems. This implies when to use it (during audit or troubleshooting), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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