pbi_run_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'run a complete QA scenario' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the model, what permissions are needed, or what the output contains. This is insufficient for a potentially impactful tool.

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 sentence with no waste, but it sacrifices essential information for brevity. While efficient, it does not earn its place by providing complete guidance.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, a QA scenario runner), the description omits critical details like output format, prerequisites (e.g., must be connected to a PBI instance), and the nature of 'scenario'. The existence of an output schema is not addressed.

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 must explain parameters. It only mentions 'active model' and 'optional extracted layout', leaving 'scenario', 'extract_folder', and 'include_hidden' unexplained. The agent cannot infer what values to provide.

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 states the verb 'run' and the resource 'complete QA scenario against the active model and optional extracted layout', which is clearer than a tautology. However, 'QA scenario' is ambiguous and does not differentiate from sibling tools like pbi_validate_model or pbi_audit_model, which also perform quality checks.

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. Given many sibling QA-related tools, the agent cannot determine when pbi_run_scenario is appropriate or what prerequisites are needed.

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