unpack_to_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It discloses the deterministic byte-identical output, the composition from a live model session and .pbix, the canonicalization of legacy layout, and the refusal to overwrite non-empty folders. This is comprehensive and transparent about side effects and constraints.

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 compact (two sentences) and every clause earns its place: purpose, output structure, determinism, git benefit, and overwrite safety. It is front-loaded with the main verb and object, and the details are organized logically without fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required params, no output schema), the description fully explains the output format, the source of each half, the deterministic behavior, and the safety guard. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what happens when invoked and what to expect as a result.

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 covers all parameters, but the description significantly enriches them: pbixPath supplies the report half, sessionId supplies the live TMDL model half, and outputFolder is for the source tree with overwrite protection. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions and clarifies each parameter's role.

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's function: unpack a .pbix into a deterministic, text-only, git-committable source tree. It specifies the resource (.pbix) and the exact output structure (Model/definition TMDL + Report/), distinguishing it from siblings like generate_pbip or export_tmdl by focusing on the full source tree output.

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: it is for creating a git-friendly source tree from a .pbix, emphasizing determinism and clean diffs. It also explains the overwrite guard. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use it, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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