pbi_model_audit_workflow

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'run a compact model audit with recommendations' but does not explain whether the operation is read-only, what changes occur, permissions needed, or the nature of recommendations.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It is not verbose, but it omits important details that could be included without becoming overly long.

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 that the tool is a workflow with an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope of the audit, the format of recommendations, or how the boolean parameters affect behavior. More context is needed for effective use.

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?

The description does not mention either parameter ('include_hidden', 'include_row_counts'), even though schema description coverage is 0%. The tool has two boolean parameters with defaults, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool runs a 'compact model audit' and provides 'recommendations,' indicating the action and output. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'pbi_audit_model,' which may perform a similar but non-compact audit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_audit_model, pbi_validate_model, or other diagnostic tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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