pbi_validate_pbix_reopen

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains OCR privacy implications (captures entire desktop, returns only signal labels) and default behavior of use_windows_ocr. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the file remains open or Desktop state changes.

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 short, with a clear main sentence and a focused paragraph on OCR behavior. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, the OCR paragraph could be more concise.

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?

With six parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the output/return value (despite an output schema, the description should still hint at what the agent can expect) and does not cover many parameter behaviors.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet only one parameter (use_windows_ocr) is explained in detail. The other five parameters (pbix_path, close_after, screenshot_path, timeout_seconds, analyze_screenshot) receive no description, leaving the agent uninformed about their purpose.

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 opens a PBIX and scans for visible repair-error signals. It provides a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pbi_diagnose_pbix_dbcc or pbi_validate_pbix_persistence.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other validation or diagnostic tools). No prerequisites or restrictions mentioned.

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