pbi_get_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly lists all return fields and includes the raw definition for inspection, making the read-only nature clear through the verb 'Devuelve' (returns). However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or discuss error conditions, though the getter nature makes mutation unlikely.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and the second listing the returned data. It is concise, well-structured, and free of unnecessary detail.

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 thoroughly enumerates the output, which is appropriate for a getter tool, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about required context (e.g., an open project) and when to use this tool over related siblings, making it slightly incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of 'page' and 'visual_id' beyond their names. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, no additional context is provided, such as whether 'page' is a page name or ID, or how to obtain 'visual_id'.

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 this tool returns a complete normalized definition of a visual, enumerating specific attributes like type, position, Z-order, title, fields, filters, and raw definition. This distinguishes it from siblings such as pbi_list_visuals (which lists visuals) or pbi_get_object (a generic getter).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_get_object or pbi_list_visuals. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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