pbi_audit_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses that it returns a global/per-domain score, executive summary, prioritized findings with evidence and recommendations, and which rules support auto-correction. It also reveals the side-effect that specifying 'formats' as markdown/html writes report files to outputs/ and returns their paths. It does not explicitly state whether the audit modifies the project, but the audit framing plus the disclosed side-effect covers the most important behavioral traits.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line summary, a list of key outputs, then parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, returned content, file-writing side-effects, and parameter scoping. It could be more complete by stating `min_severity` allowed values and explicit usage guidance relative to sibling audit tools, but it does not leave major functions unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `formats` with concrete allowed values ('markdown','html') and their side-effect, and notes that `rules` and `min_severity` constrain the audit. However, it does not clarify the accepted values for `min_severity` or the expected format/structure of `rules`, leaving some parameter semantics under-specified.

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 opens with 'Auditoria integral: modelo semantico + informe + layout', which specifically defines the tool as a comprehensive audit of a Power BI project covering three distinct areas. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_audit_model (model only) and pbi_audit_report_only (report only). The verb 'Auditoria' plus the resource scope makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 scope 'integral' communicates when to use this tool: when a full project-level audit spanning semantic model, report, and layout is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks the explicit exclusion criteria needed for a 5.

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