get_pbir_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Verbatim' meaningfully discloses that the raw, unmodified JSON is returned, which helps set expectations. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, error behavior (e.g., not found), or any prerequisites like an active pbirSession, leaving room for surprises.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence. It opens with the action and resource, then compactly lists the JSON contents without redundant words or restating the name. Every element serves to clarify scope or return value.

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 3-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers the return value ('visual.json' with constituent parts) and the scope. It is missing only minor contextual details such as session prerequisites or edge-case behavior, which are likely inferred from the session ID parameter and the getter nature.

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 67% (page and visual have descriptions, pbirSessionId does not). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify the pbirSessionId field. This is acceptable as the baseline given decent schema coverage, but it does not fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one PBIR visual's visual.json'), and details required contents (position, visual{...}, filterConfig). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_visual_format or get_pbir_page, which target different slices of the same artifact.

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 implied usage is retrieving a visual's raw JSON, but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions is provided. For a tool among many getters, the description could name contrasting tools (e.g., use get_visual_format for format-only), but the intent is inferable from the detailed scope.

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