pbi_validate_dax

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: it runs a zero/one-row probe, wraps expressions in EVALUATE ROW or TOPN(0,...), and performs semantic checks on references and format strings. It does not mention destructive actions, which is appropriate. However, it omits details on error handling beyond 'catching errors'.

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 relatively concise, using three short paragraphs. The first sentence gives a clear summary, and details follow. Minor redundancy in separating scalar/table and semantic explanations, but overall 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?

The tool's complexity (two modes, semantic flag) and output schema presence reduce the burden, but the description lacks explanation for several parameters and does not describe the return format or error behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 should explain all parameters. It explains 'kind' and 'semantic' but neglects 'expression', 'format_string', and 'include_hidden'. This leaves three of the five parameters undefined, which is a significant 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's purpose: parse-check a DAX expression through a zero/one-row probe. It distinguishes between two modes (scalar and table) and mentions semantic checking, which sets it apart from siblings like pbi_execute_dax or pbi_lint_dax.

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 context for when to use the tool (to validate DAX syntax) and hints at a sibling tool for semantic details, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like pbi_lint_dax or pbi_execute_dax.

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