ms-fabric-mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'definition parts' entails (e.g., schema, metadata, or content). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but lacks elaboration needed for clarity, leaning toward under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't adequately cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context. While the output schema helps, the description falls short for a tool of this complexity, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'requested format,' which loosely relates to the 'format' parameter but doesn't explain the others (workspace_name, semantic_model_name, semantic_model_id, decode_model_bim). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the tool retrieves 'semantic model definition parts in the requested format,' which indicates a read operation on semantic models. However, it's vague about what 'definition parts' includes and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_semantic_model_details' or 'execute_dax_query' that also interact with semantic models. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_semantic_model_details' available, the description doesn't clarify if this tool is for metadata, structure, or other aspects of semantic models. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving usage ambiguous.

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