get_datamashup_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly declares 'READ-ONLY,' which is a key behavioral disclosure. It also explains a behavioral consequence (if absent, the M lives in DataModel/TMDL) and directs to alternatives. Minor gap: it does not describe error behavior for invalid paths, but for a simple read-only info tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides a conditional alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains both the outcome (report presence and query names) and the fallback scenario. It is complete and self-sufficient, leaving no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter pbixPath is described as 'absolute path to the .pbix'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 reports whether a .pbix has a DataMashup (Power Query M) part and the query names it declares. The verb 'Report' is specific, and the resource and output are explicitly identified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_table_m and set_partition_m.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'If absent, the M lives in the DataModel/TMDL (enhanced-metadata PBI_V3) - use get_table_m / set_partition_m instead.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, making the usage context unambiguous.

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