pbi_diagnose_pbix_dbcc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It states the tool is a static diagnosis (non-destructive) and describes the return format (list of issues with type/message, valid flag). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, resource consumption, or limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 at three sentences, with the primary action and purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value (what, why, output format), with no redundant or filler content.

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 simplicity (1 required parameter, no annotations, with output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: action, when-to-use, and return structure. It could mention prerequisites like the file being built, but that is implied. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implies the only parameter 'pbix_path' is a path to a built .pbix file ('on a built .pbix'), which adds context. But it does not specify format, validity requirements, or examples, leaving the parameter semantics only partially clarified.

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 specifies the action 'statically diagnose' and the resource 'DBCC string-store risks on a built .pbix file', distinguishing it from other diagnostic tools like pbi_detect_* or pbi_validate_*. It uses a specific verb and resource, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 recommends using this tool before opening the file in Power BI Desktop to avoid the modal repair dialog, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the given directive is strong and sufficient for the intended scenario.

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