get_tablixes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention error conditions. The output is described, but transparency is limited given the lack of annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main output and ends with usage hint. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It could mention that the 'stable IDs' refer to IDs needed for editing, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 100% with one parameter 'path' well described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Tablix layout' context, which is already clear from the tool name and general description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it returns a 'Tablix layout with stable IDs' detailing columns, groups, etc. It also indicates it is 'Required input for any tablix edit', which distinguishes it from mutation siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other get tools like get_chart, but the resource is specific.

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 that this tool is needed before editing a tablix, implying usage. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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