pbi_list_tables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output content (columns, types, visibility, counts) and the two source modes ('live' vs 'pbip'), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects or permissions required.

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 short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The parameter explanation is compact and informative, without redundant phrasing or filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and parameter semantics. It could additionally explain when 'live' versus 'pbip' might be preferred, but the current level is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 provides only a default value with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the 'source' parameter's allowed values ('live' for open model, 'pbip' for TMDL files) and the default. This gives the agent enough semantic meaning to choose an appropriate value.

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 begins with 'Lista tablas con columnas, tipos, visibilidad y conteos', which clearly names the action (lists), the resource (tables), and the specific details returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_list_partitions or pbi_list_measures by focusing on tables and their metadata.

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 use when a user needs table metadata (columns, types, visibility, counts) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as pbi_model_summary or pbi_list_partitions. There are no exclusionary criteria or alternative tool mentions beyond the 'source' parameter options.

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