create_report_from_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description provides some transparency by stating it never overwrites existing files and returns warnings. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as permission requirements, effects on the source dataset, or the nature of warnings, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral constraint (no overwriting). Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: it does not describe the parameters, any prerequisites, or how the tool integrates into the workflow. Given six parameters and no schema descriptions, this is insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (e.g., what pbip_path should be, what theme options are, the meaning of visual_count). The titles alone are insufficient for an agent to correctly populate 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 action 'scaffold' and the resource 'PBIR folder from an existing dataset', listing specific files created. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_report_visual or design_report_page_from_requirements, which focus on different aspects.

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 usage for creating a new report scaffold but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. The context is clear but not explicitly framed against other options.

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