audit_report_ux_and_storytelling

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the tool's core behavior: reading PBIR pages, producing a 0-100 score, category breakdown, per-finding suggestions, and configurable strictness. This is reasonably transparent for a read-only auditing tool, though side effects or prerequisites are not discussed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the tool's role, then states inputs and outputs, then notes a key option. Each sentence adds distinct value with minimal verbosity.

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 covers the output format (0-100 score, category breakdown, suggestions) and strictness, but it does not explain key parameters like 'audience_assumed' or clarify what a 'PBIR path' refers to. With no output schema or annotations, an agent would still have to infer some invocation details.

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?

The schema provides only titles and defaults, with no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains 'strictness' with allowed values, but it does not clarify 'pbip_path', 'page_name', or 'audience_assumed'. Since these parameters are otherwise undocumented, the description leaves significant gaps.

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 specific verb ('audits'/'scores') and identifies the resource ('PBIR pages') and focus (hierarchy/density/narrative/mobile/cohesion). It clearly distinguishes this as a heuristic qualitative UX/storytelling audit tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'audit_model_and_report'.

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 implies when to use this tool (for qualitative UX and storytelling assessment of Power BI reports), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'audit_model_and_report' or 'optimize_report_performance'. Usage context is present but exclusionary criteria are absent.

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