open_template_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the input requirement (closed .pbit), the output content (tables, columns, measures, relationships), and the error/edge-case behavior (ok:false with a clear note for missing DataModelSchema). It does not mention side effects or resource use, but these are minimal for a read operation.

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 two sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the first conveys the core function and output, the second handles an edge case. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary filler, every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return values and error behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to interpret the result, including the unusual ok:false 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 input schema already describes pbitPath with 100% coverage, and the description adds only context like 'on disk' and 'closed' without specifying path syntax or formats. This is baseline-appropriate given the schema clarity.

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 reads the DataModelSchema of a closed .pbit template from disk, returning tables with columns (name, data type, key properties), measures (name, DAX expression, display folder), and relationships. The verb 'Read' plus the specific resource identifies the operation distinctly from siblings that open, edit, or write Power BI files.

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 provides clear context: use this for read-only access to a closed .pbit template's model without requiring Power BI Desktop or an engine. It also gives an explicit exclusion by noting that .pbit files without a DataModelSchema (live-connection or PBIR-only) will return ok:false, signaling not to use this tool for such files.

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