show_measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the dependency on inspect_model and the flexible input formats, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, although 'Show' strongly implies non-mutating. It also omits error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, with the purpose in the first sentence and supporting details following. No redundant phrases, and every sentence adds value.

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 description adequately covers the main required parameter and the prerequisite call, and the output schema presumably handles return values. The only notable gap is the lack of explanation for 'model_label', but for a read-only display tool this is a minor omission.

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 must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'measure' parameter with accepted formats. However, the optional 'model_label' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap for a two-parameter tool. The partial explanation earns a score below the baseline.

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 ('Show the current DAX expression of one measure') and the resource ('the table it belongs to'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_measure_dax' (which modifies) and 'inspect_model' (which inspects the whole model).

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?

Provides an explicit prerequisite ('Call inspect_model first') which is a clear usage guideline. It also specifies the accepted input formats, helping the agent invoke it correctly. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the dependency and format hints are sufficient for typical use cases.

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