list_service_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs two GET requests, requires an AAD token, and that the token is never echoed. It does not mention potential side effects (though listing is inherently read-only) or pagination, but for a list operation the transparency is above average.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first covers purpose, endpoints, and downstream usage; the second covers authentication. No fluff, information is front-loaded, and every clause 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?

The description is quite complete for a list tool: it states what is listed (datasets and reports), that ids feed other tools, and the auth requirement. There is no output schema, so it could have described the return structure (e.g., fields like id, name), but the mention of ids and the simplicity of the tool make this acceptable. It misses nothing critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the accessToken parameter can be omitted to use DAXOPS_PBI_TOKEN and that it is never echoed, which is not in the schema. No additional info is given for workspaceId beyond its schema description, but the parameter clarification justifies a 4.

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 it lists datasets and reports in a Power BI Service workspace, with a specific verb (list) and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the two endpoints (GET .../datasets + .../reports) and notes the ids are used by refresh_dataset, execute_service_query, and generate_embed_token, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 says the ids feed refresh_dataset, execute_service_query, and generate_embed_token, telling the agent when to use this tool (before those operations). It also states the authentication prerequisite (AAD access token or DAXOPS_PBI_TOKEN), providing clear context for invocation.

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