pbi_list_visuals

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

The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the output fields (id, tipo, posicion, campos, titulo), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose behavior for edge cases such as empty pages or invalid page identifiers, and it relies heavily on the annotation for safety profile.

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, using only two sentences to convey purpose and parameter information. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only listing) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and the parameter meaning. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could mention error conditions or preconditions like the page existing in the current report.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'page' parameter, but the tool description compensates by explaining that it accepts an internal id or visible name. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition, making the parameter clear enough for usage.

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 it lists the visuals of a page and specifies the returned fields (id, tipo, posicion, campos, titulo). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_get_visual (which retrieves a single visual) and pbi_list_report_pages (which lists pages).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_get_visual or pbi_list_report_pages. It only states the basic function and parameter, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit context or exclusions.

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