pbi_validate_star_schema

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the internal logic (heuristic for fact/dimension/bridge tables) and the optional fact_table_hints parameter. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (likely read-only) or the output format. The description provides good behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Description is concise with two well-structured paragraphs. First paragraph states purpose and heuristic; second covers the optional parameter. Front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, description need not detail return values. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., connected model), the output type, or how the heuristic applies to real-world scenarios. Adequate but not fully complete for a validation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for one parameter (fact_table_hints), explaining its use for force-tagging tables. The other parameter (include_hidden) is not described. Partial compensation for low schema coverage, but incomplete.

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?

Description clearly states purpose: 'Confirm a model follows star schema topology.' It defines specific heuristic for fact/dimension/bridge tables and flags violations like snowflake and constellation. Distinguished from sibling validation tools like pbi_validate_model and pbi_validate_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?

Description implies usage for validating star schema structure but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or comparison to other validation tools. Could be improved by specifying context where this tool is preferred.

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