ms-fabric-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying safety, but doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what metadata includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key parameter hints, making it appropriately sized for its content.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter nuances. The output schema helps, but without annotations, more context on permissions or errors would improve completeness.

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 mentions retrieval by 'name or ID', which hints at 'semantic_model_name' and 'semantic_model_id', but doesn't explain 'workspace_name' or clarify that at least one of name/ID is needed. This adds some meaning but doesn't fully cover the 3 parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('semantic model metadata'), specifying it can be retrieved by name or ID. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_semantic_model_definition' by focusing on metadata rather than definition details, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 like 'get_semantic_model_definition' or 'list_items'. It mentions the parameters (name or ID) but doesn't explain prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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