audit_datamashup_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the read-only nature, that secret values are never echoed, and that it reports only presence and location. This goes beyond a simple statement of function and manages user expectations appropriately.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every phrase adds value. The format is compact and easily skimmable.

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 simple read-only audit tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it reports (presence/location), and what it deliberately avoids (echoing secrets). No significant gaps remain.

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 single parameter pbixPath is already fully described in the schema as 'absolute path to the .pbix'. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'credential audit of a .pbix's DataMashup'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on credential material detection and presence/location reporting, not general info retrieval.

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 read-only audit purpose is implicit, and the scope is clear, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives like get_datamashup_info or rewrite_connection_string. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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