inject_evaluateandlog

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 adds important context: the operation is idempotent, and the user must remember to strip afterwards. But it doesn't describe side effects on the measure (e.g., whether the original DAX is preserved), session requirements, or what happens if the measure is already wrapped.

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?

Three concise sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and the idempotence and cleanup reminder are stated directly. No wasted words; every sentence adds essential information.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a crucial post-condition but lacks parameter-level context and return/result behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of output schema, the description is adequate but not complete, especially around sessionId and table.

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 only 25% (only 'label' has a description). The description names 'measure' implicitly but provides no explanation for 'sessionId' or 'table'. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving these parameters underspecified.

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 function: wrapping a measure's DAX in EVALUATEANDLOG for debugging, with the specific purpose of capturing values in Server Timings / DAX Studio traces. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like strip_evaluateandlog and other measure-editing tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: during debugging. It also instructs to strip_evaluateandlog afterwards, naming the complementary sibling tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit exclusions (e.g., when not to use) or alternatives for other debugging scenarios.

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