pbi_compare_report_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool compares versions but does not clarify if it is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about 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 a single sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. No extraneous information.

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?

With 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema shown, the description lacks detail on how parameters should be provided and what the comparison result looks like. It mentions comparison criteria but does not explain the output structure, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.

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 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not describe any parameters; it only mentions 'extracted report versions' which loosely correspond to extract_folder_a and extract_folder_b, but label_a and label_b are entirely unexplained.

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 compares two extracted report versions, and specifies the comparison dimensions (pages, visuals, layout score). This distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_extract_report and pbi_compile_report.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that extract_folder_a and extract_folder_b must be pre-existing extracts from pbi_extract_report) or provide context for when comparison is appropriate.

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