detect_report_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns ('classification plus the evidence') and reveals robust handling of both .pbix and PBIP structures. It could add error/edge-case behavior, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 core purpose, no redundant filler. The technical detail is compact and functional.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input types, classification categories, and return value. It lacks edge-case behavior but otherwise fulfills the information needs.

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 schema already describes 'path' at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description, though it reinforces the accepted input types.

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 verb ('Classify') and resource ('a report source'), enumerating the three possible outputs (legacy | pbir | pbip). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting its specific behavior on both .pbix and PBIP project folders.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use it: for classifying report sources as legacy, pbir, or pbip. It describes the relevant file/folder structures (Report/Layout vs Report/definition/), effectively scoping the tool's use. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the domain is distinct from the sibling tools.

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