convert_legacy_to_pbir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining the 'BEST-EFFORT' nature, the file mapping (pages -> page.json, visualContainers -> visual.json), GUID name generation, default output folder, and the returned pbirSessionId. It lacks details on error handling or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 dense yet efficient, front-loading the key action and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first covers inputs/outputs/defaults, the second explains the return value, and the final two provide critical caution and reverse-direction status. No waste.

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 complexity of a conversion tool and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies input formats, output tree structure, default location, return value, and best-effort flag with validation advice. It could mention overwrite behavior or read-only nature, but the essentials are present.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying that legacyPath can be a .pbix or raw Layout JSON file and that targetFolder defaults to '<name>.Report' next to the source. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the file type variations and default 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 opens with 'BEST-EFFORT explode a legacy Report/Layout (.pbix or a raw Layout JSON file) into a PBIR definition tree', using a specific verb ('explode') and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools that generate PBIP or work in PBIR. It also specifies the output structure and return value, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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 clear context for when to use the tool (converting legacy .pbix/Layout JSON to PBIR) and when not to use it ('pbir->legacy is not implemented'). It also flags that the output is best-effort and advises opening in Power BI Desktop for validation/upgrade. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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