pbi_search_slicer

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behaviors: never sends keystrokes to canvas (historical bug), clears via input's own value, polls for filtered items, returns specific shape, and notes mutation of filter when pick is used. This is comprehensive and builds trust.

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 front-loaded with the main action and contains valuable behavioral details, but it is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds meaning, but there is minor redundancy (e.g., 'never sends keystrokes' could be integrated). A good balance of completeness and conciseness.

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 (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers return values, mutation effects, and edge cases (focus abort). It lacks explanation for the 'container' parameter, but overall provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the 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?

The input schema has three parameters (query, pick, container) with zero description coverage. The description explains query and pick (including matching logic), but container is not described, leaving a semantic gap. Though the description adds value for two parameters, the missing container reduces effectiveness.

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 types into a slicer's search box and optionally clicks a matching result. It uses specific verb 'type' and resource 'slicer search box', distinguishing it from siblings like pbi_set_slicer (which sets slicer state) and pbi_type (general typing).

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 explains when to use the tool (to search and pick slicer items) and provides behavioral details such as aborting if focus fails and clearing via input's value. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like pbi_set_slicer, which would strengthen guidance.

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