pbi_connect

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior but only provides a high-level summary. It does not explain what 'connect' entails (e.g., opening a new connection vs. reusing an existing one), side effects, or error conditions. The force_reconnect parameter hints at behavior, but the description does not clarify it.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is good for front-loading. However, it sacrifices important details, making it under-specified. It is structured as a single statement but does not earn its place due to incompleteness.

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 (two optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is too brief. It lacks context about connection management, what 'report' produces, and how the output schema relates to the action. The description does not compensate for the missing annotation and low schema coverage.

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 description adds no meaning to the two parameters (preferred_port, force_reconnect). Since schema coverage is 0% and the tool relies on the description for parameter explanation, the complete lack of parameter information fails to help the agent use them correctly.

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 that the tool connects to Power BI Desktop and reports the active instance, specifying the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_list_instances or pbi_refresh, though 'report' could be more explicit about what is returned.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_list_instances or pbi_refresh. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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