pbix_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states READ-ONLY and 'Never writes,' which are critical behavioral traits. It also clarifies that the tool works on a closed file, not an open model. It does not mention error behavior or output format, but the key safety and execution-context disclosures are present.

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, information-dense sentence with a colon-separated list of checks. It front-loads the key facts (READ-ONLY, 17-point, CLOSED .pbix) and then enumerates specific checks. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should ideally mention what the tool returns. It does not explicitly state the result format or return value. However, it thoroughly describes the input constraints and the exact checks performed. For a diagnostic tool, the output is implied, but a brief note on the return value would make it fully complete.

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 100% with 'absolute path to the .pbix' already defined. The tool description reinforces that the path must point to a closed .pbix and that the operation is file-level, adding marginal meaning. Since the schema fully covers the single parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a READ-ONLY 17-point file-level container scan of a closed .pbix, enumerating specific checks like zip part inventory, Version/DataModel/DataMashup presence and sizes, stale SecurityBindings, and legacy/PBIR detection. This distinguishes it from siblings like pbix_diff (comparison) or get_datamashup_info (focused on data mashup), making the 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?

The description makes it clear that the tool operates on a CLOSED .pbix file, implying it should be used for file-level diagnostics rather than analysis of open models. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternatives, which prevents a perfect score, but the context is well-defined.

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