pbi_scaffold_pbix

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

The description discloses that theme_json_path is validated against a schema and extra_measures are appended after the template baseline. However, it does not mention the behavior of open_after_create or prime_string_store parameters, nor any potential destructive actions (e.g., overwriting files). Since no annotations are provided, more behavioral detail would improve this score.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by details on templates and optional parameters. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

The description covers the main purpose and several parameters, but it omits the two boolean parameters (open_after_create, prime_string_store). Given the complexity (6 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but not fully complete. Including all parameters would raise the score.

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 explains the template parameter (listing values), theme_json_path (validation details), and extra_measures (appended after baseline). It does not describe output_path (implicit), open_after_create, or prime_string_store, but covers the key parameters well. This adds significant 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 it creates a starter PBIX from a named template, lists specific templates, and mentions optional parameters like theme_json_path and extra_measures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify existing reports (e.g., pbi_apply_theme, pbi_compile_report).

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 implies the tool is for creating new PBIX files, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like pbi_compile_report or pbi_create_persistent_report. There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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