powerbi_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Diagnose' plus the enumerated returns (system status, engine availability matrix, active store counts, remediation advice) implies a read-only operation, but the description never explicitly states that it has no side effects or what permissions it needs. The Returns section is largely redundant with the declared 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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then use-when bullets, then args, then returns. The Args and Returns blocks are cleanly separated, but the Returns block duplicates the output schema and dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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-only diagnostic with an output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, parameter meaning, and return shape. The remaining gap is an explicit statement of read-only/non-mutating behavior and any auth or environment prerequisites for the engines it inspects.

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 brief 'Whether to return full diagnostic info and remediation tips for each engine' is the only semantic explanation of the sole parameter, and it usefully clarifies the true/false tradeoff. It adequately compensates for the schema gap, though it could say more about verbosity/cost implications.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Diagnose orchestrator health, detected modeling engines, and storage readiness.' This is a unique diagnostic function among the siblings (all of which are model/report operations), so an agent can immediately distinguish it without inspecting any schema.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions ('Use this tool when the user asks to: check if the orchestrator is running, see which engines are installed, get setup instructions'), which is unusually clear for context selection. It stops short of a 5 only because it names no exclusions, though no sibling offers an overlapping capability that would need routing away from.

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