pbi_list_visuals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose what information is returned (fields list), but it does not mention read-only status, error conditions, pagination, or ordering. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks deeper context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and includes parameter documentation inline. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 straightforward list tool with a single parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential information: what it lists, the fields returned, and the meaning of the input. It does not explain return value structure in text, but the output schema presumably handles that. Minor gaps include no mention of error handling or ordering, which are not critical here.

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 has only one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the `page` parameter meaning: 'id interno o nombre visible de la pagina' (internal id or visible page name). This adds useful semantic value beyond the bare schema, though it could include examples or accepted formats.

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 visuals of a page, and enumerates the fields returned (id, type, position, fields, title). It uses a specific verb ("Lista") and resource ("visuales de una pagina"), and is distinct from sibling tools like pbi_get_visual (which fetches a single visual).

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 implied use case is to retrieve all visuals for a specified page, which is clear from the description. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pbi_get_visual for a single visual), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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