pbi_launch

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

With no annotations provided, the description reveals full behavioral details: launcher resolution order (PBI_DESKTOP_BRIDGE env → path → direct), injection of WebView2 remote-debugging env var, detached spawning, waiting for CDP port, reuse of existing instance if port is up, and pre-flight warning. This is highly transparent.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the primary action, then efficiently covers resolution order, spawning mechanics, port reuse, pre-flight warning, and post-launch instruction. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (debug port launch, multiple launcher paths) and absence of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains inputs, process, edge cases (port already up), and expected follow-up (pbi_wait_for). No gaps remain for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 100%, so schema already documents the three parameters. The description adds valuable context: explains default values for port (9222) and waitPortMs (240000), and provides additional meaning for pbip (absolute path). It goes beyond the schema by explaining launcher resolution and post-launch behavior.

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 tool's function: 'Launch Power BI Desktop on a .pbip WITH the CDP debug port.' It specifies the exact resource (pbip file) and the key action (launch with debug port). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like pbi_wait_for or pbi_pages.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including pre-flight warnings about orphaned processes, and post-launch guidance: 'After it returns cdpUp:true, call pbi_wait_for {text:"<page name>"} — the canvas is still rendering.' It also explains behavior when port is already up, avoiding redundant launches.

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