report_get_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only 'via the Power BI API' as extra context, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or ordering behavior. There is no contradiction with the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and object clearly. Every part contributes to the meaning, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two fully documented required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and expected result. It does not detail the page object shape or ordering, but those are not necessary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters are required and have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already explains workspaceId and reportId sufficiently.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of pages in a report'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling report tools like report_get and report_list by targeting the pages within a specific report.

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 intended usage is implied: call this when you need the list of pages for a report identified by workspaceId and reportId. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like report_get or report_get_definition, and no exclusion conditions are stated.

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