list_open_models

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals a side effect: 'opening a probe connection into every one of them', and labels the tool 'UNSAFE-FOR-PIPELINE'. This goes well beyond what an annotation might typically state and is highly transparent.

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 appropriately compact, front-loaded with the critical 'UNSAFE-FOR-PIPELINE' warning, and uses three sentences that all contribute information: what it does, the prerequisite, and the exclusion. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a list-oriented tool: it states the action ('lists'), the target ('models'), the context ('open on this machine'), and important side effects and prerequisites. The return value is implied by 'lists' and no additional fields are necessary for this use case.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100% and there are no parameter meanings to clarify. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('Power BI Desktop models') with a clear scope ('a human currently has open on this machine'). The 'interactive attach only' and 'UNSAFE-FOR-PIPELINE' context distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling set that operate on models or datasets more broadly.

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 usage guidance is provided: the prerequisite 'Open the .pbix in Power BI Desktop first' and the strong exclusion 'Never call this from an unattended job' plus 'interactive attach only'. This clearly tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke and when it is not.

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