pbi_export_correction_report

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

It discloses writing to output_path, returning path and summary, and lists output sections. However, it is unclear whether it runs analyses itself or aggregates existing results, and no mention of side effects or permissions.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, listing output sections concisely. No extraneous text, but could benefit from a brief note on parameters.

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 presence of an output schema (signalled true), return values are partially covered. However, parameter descriptions are missing, and the aggregation process (whether it runs analyses or reads state) is ambiguous. This leaves gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only mentions output_path in backticks without explaining its purpose. The other three parameters (extract_folder, rubric_criteria, fact_table_hints) are not described at all, leaving the agent unable to understand their semantics.

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 generates a Markdown correction report aggregating all analysis tools, and lists specific output sections (model overview, star-schema verdict, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like pbi_validate_star_schema or pbi_detect_circular_dependencies.

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 implies it should be used after running analysis tools, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like pbi_export_validation_report. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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