pbi_operation_history

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format, including conditional fields for errors. It implies read-only behavior ('Return'). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or permissions needed, but the usage example suggests safe introspection.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the core function, second provides structure and use case. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage, output format, and an example. The output schema exists, so detailed return values are not needed. The description is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 mentions 'most-recent N' and the example 'last 5 calls' adds meaningful context to the 'last_n' parameter. However, it does not explicitly name the parameter or explain the default value, leaving some gap.

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 returns the most-recent N tool operations, specifying ordering (newest first) and resource (connection manager history). This distinguishes it from sibling pbi_* tools which perform operations like creating measures or pages.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this to self-diagnose what just happened' with a concrete example of pulling last 5 calls after a failure. This tells the agent when to use it (debugging after errors) and implies when not to (for performing operations).

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