pbi_perf_analyzer

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the 'captureQueryFor' parameter clobbers the clipboard and that the tool restores the pane and ribbon after execution. This is helpful behavioral context, although it does not mention whether the tool modifies any data or requires specific permissions.

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 extremely concise—two sentences totaling 22 words—with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then efficiently covers the optional parameter and side effects. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers most necessary aspects: purpose, side effect, and restoration behavior. However, it does not clarify what the tool outputs (e.g., where per-visual render ms appear) or whether a visual must be selected. A small gap, but overall sufficient.

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 input schema has a single optional parameter with 0% description coverage. The description fully explains this parameter: 'optional captureQueryFor grabs one visual DAX via clipboard (clobbers clipboard).' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare type definition, making the parameter's purpose and side effect clear.

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 this tool runs the Performance Analyzer lane and measures per-visual render milliseconds. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Performance Analyzer lane'), and the additional detail about per-visual ms makes the purpose unmistakable. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, no sibling tool has an obviously overlapping purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferable or when to avoid it, nor does it reference other tools like pbi_eval or pbi_baseline. The only usage hint is the optional parameter, but no contextual advice.

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