pbi_open_pbip_project

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral details: it detects folder types (TMDL/PBIR), returns a summary with warnings, and gives an example warning. Annotations (idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false) are consistent with the description. It could go further on side effects, but this exceeds the bar.

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?

Three sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the primary action, followed by detection behavior and a parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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 moderate-complexity tool with an output schema, an idempotency annotation, and a well-covered single parameter, the description covers the essentials: behavior, detection, return value, and parameter format. No major gaps identified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter — and it does with a dedicated sentence: '`path`: ruta al archivo .pbip o a su carpeta.' This fully explains the only parameter, including both accepted input forms.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Opens a .pbip project and marks it as active project.' It clearly explains the scope (detects .SemanticModel and .Report folders, returns a summary with warnings) and distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_create_pbip_project or pbi_open_in_desktop. No other sibling has this open/activate purpose.

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 that this tool is a prerequisite for working with a project (it 'marks it as active project'), which suggests a workflow, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. It provides no 'when not to use' guidance or explicit alternatives.

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