pbi_generate_dax_context_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses truncation behavior ('Output is truncated to max_chars... with a trailing note'), the ability to omit measure expressions via include_dax, and the format sections. It does not mention whether it is read-only or other side effects, but the tool is clearly non-destructive.

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 compact and well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by bulleted sections for the output format. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and complexity, the description fails to mention two parameters (include_hidden, include_relationships). It also does not specify prerequisites like needing an active model connection. While output schema exists, the description should cover all parameters to be fully self-contained.

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 explains max_chars (default 12000, truncation note) and include_dax (omit measures) but omits include_hidden and include_relationships. Only half of the parameters are described, leaving ambiguity about the effect of the others.

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 renders a compact markdown snapshot of the model (tables, columns, measures, relationships) for use in LLM prompts to author DAX. It uses specific verbs ('Render', 'paste') and identifies the resource ('model snapshot'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_export_model or pbi_list_tables which serve different purposes.

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 says the snapshot is 'ready to paste into an LLM system prompt so the LLM can author DAX with full schema context in one round-trip,' clearly defining when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the use case is well-defined.

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