get_measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states the return value ('measure definition including DAX expression') but does not mention read-only/side-effect behavior, errors, permissions, or behavior when workspace/model are omitted.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is scannable with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple getter: it identifies the required parameter and the return content. It lacks details about relying on current context when workspace/model are omitted, error behavior, and the exact shape of the returned measure definition.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it gives one-line meanings for measure_name, workspace, model, and a non-schema ctx argument. The descriptions are helpful but minimal, and the inclusion of ctx not in the input schema introduces ambiguity.

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?

States a precise action: retrieving a specific DAX measure definition by name. This clearly distinguishes it from list_measures, create_measure, update_measure, and delete_measure.

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 phrase 'specific ... by name' implies use when a single measure's definition is needed, but it never explicitly contrasts with list_measures or explains when not to use it. No prerequisites or context requirements are mentioned.

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