pbi_export_validation_report

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Export as JSON' implies a read‑only, non‑destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state file overwrite behavior, connection requirements, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 concise sentence that front‑loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words but sacrifices completeness.

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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Parameter semantics are entirely missing, and usage context is absent.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter. An agent cannot infer the meaning or usage of extract_folder, include_hidden, include_measure_tests, include_empty_visual_scan, or empty_visual_filter_expression from the description alone.

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 exports multiple aspects (model, DAX, layout, binding, score validation) as JSON. The verb 'Export' and resource 'validation report' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like pbi_export_model and pbi_export_correction_report. However, 'score validation' is ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_export_correction_report or pbi_export_model. No prerequisites, use cases, 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.