pbi_diagnose_render_risks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only' upfront and details the checks performed, including the dependency on a live manager. It doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist) and provides sufficient behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with a clear summary, bullet points for risk types, and separate paragraphs for usage guidance. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no enums, has output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and conditions for different checks. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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 the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of 'page' and 'visual_id' for narrowing scope, and that omitting them scans the whole report. However, 'include_hidden' is not explained beyond its name, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it aggregates render-risk diagnostics for visuals, listing specific conditions checked (constant Y measure, unresolved home table, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_detect_* by being an aggregate diagnostic.

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 explains when to use (diagnose render risks), how to narrow scope (visual_id, page), and the effect of providing a live manager. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the context is clear.

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