pbi_open_in_desktop

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well. It discloses waiting behavior, dynamic port identification, select=true behavior, reuse_open session reuse, that it never closes user windows, and the no-data caveat for newly opened .pbip files.

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 organized into short, purposeful paragraphs. It front-loads the main action, then adds workflow context, parameter notes, and a caveat. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of meaningful annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full workflow, side effects, parameter nuances, and next-step refresh guidance. The output schema handles return-value expectations, so no additional return description is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains path/pbip_path optionality and aliasing, select=true behavior, and reuse_open semantics. However, the timeout parameter is never explained, leaving one of five parameters without added meaning.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Abre un .pbip o .pbix en Power BI Desktop y espera a que sirva el modelo.' It clearly states the resource, the verb, and the expected outcome. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing model-load verification and active-model selection.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: after editing a project, to verify it opens and to query measures without manual user effort. It also points to pbi_refresh_model as a follow-up when checking values. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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