pbi_report_capabilities

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that it 'observes' the report and reports specific capabilities. It also explains the constraint that only existing visual types can be cloned, which is a behavioral trait relevant for the agent's planning. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the key outputs and then provide the essential usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool provides, why it matters (the cloning constraint), and when to use it. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further explanation 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, but it does add value by describing the output (version, theme, custom visuals, clonable types), which complements the presence of an output schema.

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 what the tool does: it reports the observed PBIR version, theme, custom visuals, and clonable visual types. The verb is implied but specific ('dice cuales hay disponibles'), and the resource is 'el informe' (the report). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_list_visuals (lists actual visuals) and pbi_capabilities (generic capabilities) by focusing on the types available for cloning.

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 says to use this tool 'antes de intentarlo' (before trying) to create visuals, and explains why: only visuals of types already present in the report can be created. This gives a clear when-to-use context, though it does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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