pbi_measure_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a key limitation: 'Analisis lexico: detecta referencias escritas, no las construidas dinamicamente.' It also mentions returning broken references. This is valuable and goes beyond a simple statement of function.

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 that front-load the core question and then specify outputs and methodology. Every sentence adds substantive information without 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?

The description provides a solid overview of functionality and limitations, and an output schema exists to cover return values. The main omission is the meaning of 'source', which is not clarified, but the description otherwise covers key aspects like transitive closure and broken references.

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 description explicitly explains 'depth' ('hasta depth') and implicitly covers 'name' (the measure to analyze), but the 'source' parameter is completely unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, this is a notable gap since the description must compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 its purpose: 'De que depende una medida y quien depende de ella' and enumerates specific output types (direct dependencies, broken references, transitive closure, reverse dependencies). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_column_dependencies.

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 for dependency analysis of measures but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over pbi_column_dependencies or other analysis tools, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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