pbi_inspect_model

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned content areas and implies a read-only inspection, which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions required, model-size limitations, latency, or whether output is truncated for large models.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and scope, then enumerates the returned sections without filler. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what the blueprint contains.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents, which substitutes for an output schema. It is nearly complete but lacks any note on large-model behavior or result limits.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that 'model' accepts a model name or dataset GUID. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the high schema coverage makes the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full architecture blueprint of a semantic model') and enumerates exactly what is covered: tables, storage modes, relationships, RLS roles, DAX measures, and health findings. It is distinguishable from a pure catalog or lineage tool, though it does not explicitly say how it differs from sibling pbi_health_audit despite overlapping on 'health findings'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'full architecture blueprint' implies a comprehensive inspection, but an agent must infer when this is preferable to pbi_catalog_summary, pbi_health_audit, or pbi_list_models.

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