list_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state that the tool is read-only and does not edit or validate native visuals, slicers, bookmarks, filters or themes. It also sketches the returned content (page and visual names, types, positions), though it omits behavior on invalid paths or empty reports.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by tightly scoped exclusions; no filler. The second sentence's list of out-of-scope artifacts is dense but earns its place as scope fencing.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but leaves the sole input unexplained and gives no notion of output shape or error conditions. Adequate but with clear gaps given zero schema description coverage.

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?

There is one required parameter, reportDir, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains the expected directory structure. The only parameter's semantics are left entirely to inference from its name.

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 uses a concrete verb and resource ('Read existing PBIR pages and visual names, types and positions') and adds a stated purpose. The exclusion sentence implicitly separates it from validate_visuals/commit_visual, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'so you can choose a page and avoid overlap' gives a clear usage context (inspect before placing new visuals). The second sentence supplies when-not-to-use guidance by ruling out editing and validation tasks, but no alternative tool is named explicitly.

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