pbi_validate_pbip_project

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this validation is read-only, what prerequisites exist (e.g., a connected model or open project), or what side effects might occur. The description only lists what is checked, leaving safety and operational behavior unknown.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource ('Valida a fondo el proyecto .pbip activo') and then adds clarifying details. No wasted words, fully focused.

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 tool is simple (0 params) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core purpose and scope (structure, PBIR, TMDL). However, it lacks any usage context or behavioral caveats, such as what to do with the results or when to choose this over other validators, leaving the completeness just at the minimum viable level.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none 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 a specific action ('Valida a fondo' = thoroughly validates) on a specific resource ('el proyecto .pbip activo' = the active .pbip project), and further specifies what is validated (structure, PBIR, TMDL). This clearly differentiates it from sibling validation tools like pbi_validate_measures or pbi_validate_page_spec, which target narrower scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the comprehensive project-level validator, nor does it exclude use cases better suited for pbi_health_check, pbi_audit_project, or pbi_validate_measures. The only implied usage is from the tool name and general validation context, which is insufficient.

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