pbi_report_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the tool is informational and describes the cloning constraint, but it doesn't explicitly state that it's a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, permissions, or return format details.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence lists the output categories, and the second explains the rationale for the tool's existence. Both sentences earn their place with 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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent why this tool matters (cloning constraint) and what information it provides. It doesn't need to explain return values due to the output schema, and the context is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuous. The baseline for no params is 4, and the description adds context about the output categories (PBIR version, theme, custom visuals, clonable types), which is helpful even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 states the tool reports observed PBIR version, theme, custom visuals, and clonable visual types. It clarifies that it enumerates which visual types are available for cloning, distinguishing it from creation tools. The verb is implicit ('dice cuales hay disponibles') but the intent is clear.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a prerequisite: only existing visual types can be cloned, so you should consult this tool before attempting to create visuals. This gives a clear when-to-use context and the underlying reason, though it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions.

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