report_get_definition

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

Despite readOnlyHint=true, the description transparently discloses that the tool writes all definition files to an output directory and returns the list of written files. This adds context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention details like whether existing files are overwritten or whether the directory must already exist.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose, and the second describes the side effect and return value. This is appropriately front-loaded and 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?

The description names the output behavior, the return value, and the relevant formats, which is sufficient for a moderate-complexity tool. A small gap is that it does not specify whether the output directory is created automatically or must already exist.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a bit of clarity by explaining that outputDirectoryPath receives the written definition files, but it does not add deeper semantics for reportId or workspaceId beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full definition of a report' in PBIR or PBIR-Legacy format. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like report_get by emphasizing that it writes the complete definition files and returns the list of files written.

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 phrase 'full definition' implies use cases involving export of the complete report definition, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as report_get, report_get_pages, or report_get_datasources. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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