list_pbir_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (specific fields) and ordering, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects (though a list operation is likely read-only), error behavior, or session prerequisites.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists output fields and ordering. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 simple single-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description covers the operation, the resource, and the output fields. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing edge cases like invalid session IDs or pagination, but this is sufficient for core use.

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 provides no descriptions for pbirSessionId (0% coverage). The description references an 'open PBIR report' which indirectly maps to the session ID, but it does not explain how to obtain the ID, its format, or that it is the session identifier. The parameter name itself is somewhat self-explanatory, giving partial compensation.

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 verb 'List' with the resource 'pages of an open PBIR report' and explicitly enumerates the fields returned (GUID name, displayName, size, displayOption, visual count) and the ordering ('in page order'). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_pages by specifying PBIR-specific details.

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 description implies usage for open PBIR reports when you need page information, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_pages or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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