list_visuals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: native visuals are skipped, thumbnails are live by default (implying a heavier call), and no manifest file is required. It does not state read-only safety, authorization needs, cost of live thumbnail rendering, or failure behavior for missing/invalid reportDir.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the default behavior and the opt-out flag. The closing sentence 'No separate manifest is used' is cryptic and adds little without context on what would otherwise be needed.

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 three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main payload and the thumbnail mode well. It falls short on connectionId, on the reportDir path expectations, and on any indication of how results are structured or bounded across multiple pages.

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 explains 'thumbnails' well, and 'reportDir' is loosely implied by 'from PBIR', but 'connectionId' is never mentioned and its role (live thumbnail source?) is left entirely undocumented.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('vilsem Renderer visual across report pages from PBIR') and enumerates the returned payload (summary, bindings, version, layout, thumbnail). The exclusion of native visuals further scopes it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_visual or list_pages, and the term 'vilsem Renderer' is unexplained jargon.

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?

Gives a clear usage rule for the thumbnails flag (defaults to live, pass false for metadata-only discovery), which is genuinely helpful for a discovery tool. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over read_visual, explain_visual, or list_pages, so the agent must infer sibling selection.

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