pbi_validate_power_query_steps

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains regex support and matching semantics but omits details on error handling, return format, or behavior for unspecified parameters. The tool's read-only nature is implicitly clear but not explicitly stated.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose, the second elaborates with examples and regex detail. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of matches). With 4 parameters and no annotations, deeper context on parameters and return value is missing, reducing completeness for effective invocation.

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 only adds meaning for the 'expected_steps' parameter (substring/regex). Parameters 'table', 'case_sensitive', and 'partition_name' are unexplained, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer usage.

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 verifies that a Power Query (M) expression contains expected step patterns, with a specific verb ('verify') and resource. It provides concrete examples (e.g., checking postal-code left-padding) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on DAX or model validation.

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 explicitly positions this tool for grading exercises and gives illustrative use cases. While it doesn't enumerate when not to use it or mention alternatives, the sibling context and examples imply appropriate usage without needing further exclusion.

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