pbi_check_scaffold_spec_dbcc_risks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states 'Pre-build DBCC risk analysis' and 'catch empty-String-column risks up front,' implying a read-only validation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not modify data, or what permissions are needed. It also lacks details on output behavior (beyond mirroring input shape) or error conditions. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 extremely concise: three sentences, no redundant words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides context by naming sibling tools, and the third gives direct usage guidance. This structure front-loads the key information and is easy to parse.

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 a single parameter and an output schema, so the description need not detail return values. However, the description lacks explanation of domain terminology ('DBCC'), does not clarify that this is a validation step (non-destructive), and provides limited context about what the analysis result includes beyond 'empty-String-column risks.' Given the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 has one parameter 'tables' with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that this parameter should mirror the input shape of two other tools and that passing the same list enables catching empty-string-column risks. This provides critical usage context that the schema alone does not. However, the description does not detail the expected structure of the objects within the arrays, relying on the referenced tools' schemas. This is partially compensating but could be more explicit.

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 performs 'Pre-build DBCC risk analysis on a tables spec.' It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('tables spec'). It also names sibling tools (pbi_create_persistent_report_tool, pbi_scaffold_pbix_tool), indicating a pre-check role. However, the acronym 'DBCC' is not explained, and the description could be more precise about what 'risk analysis' covers beyond empty-string columns.

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 explicitly states the input shape mirrors two specific tools and advises to pass the same tables list before calling the builder to catch risks upfront. This gives clear context for when to use: before those builders. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools for other checks. The guidance is clear but could be more comprehensive.

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