pbi_run_dax

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing the fail-closed acceptance policy, the effects of max_rows, max_bytes, timeout_seconds, and export behavior, including writing to outputs/. It also reveals the response content (columns, truncation reasons, engine errors), providing thorough behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints, parameter semantics, and output behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present and annotations available, the description still adds critical context: accepted DAX forms, fail-closed policy, export side effects, truncation criteria, and error handling. It leaves no major gap for an agent deciding when and how to invoke this tool.

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 carries the full burden. It explains export, max_rows, max_bytes, and timeout_seconds with their intended behavior. The 'query' parameter is only indirectly described as a DAX query, but the accepted forms section adds enough context to understand its purpose.

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 ('Ejecuta') and identifies the resource ('consulta DAX contra el modelo activo'). It also enumerates the accepted query forms, making it clearly distinct from other tools that list static model metadata or perform audits.

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?

It explicitly defines when the tool may be used (read-only DAX queries) and gives clear exclusions (only EVALUATE, DEFINE...EVALUATE, and $SYSTEM DMVs; everything else is rejected with a fail-closed policy). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives, so it is not a perfect 5.

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