pbi_propose_dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it classifies columns into status/date/metric families, returns complete pages with specs, and also discloses 'blockers' and 'themes' as part of the output. This goes beyond just the annotation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by differentiation and output details. It's slightly longer than the two-sentence ideal, but every sentence adds value—no 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, how it differs from a key sibling, and what it returns (pages with specs, blockers, themes). Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return structures. It doesn't mention prerequisites like model selection, but that's context likely handled elsewhere.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it provides no parameter-specific information that could be added.

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's purpose: examine the model and propose several distinct dashboard designs with rationale. It explicitly differentiates from pbi_page_building_blocks, which only provides inventory, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use this tool to offer design options to the user instead of deciding for them. It contrasts directly with pbi_page_building_blocks, which leaves design decisions to the user, giving clear when-to-use signals.

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