pbi_list_audit_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it is a catalog, but does not explicitly say it is a read-only operation, whether it requires a model connection, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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, concise sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose. It contains no extraneous information and is front-loaded with the essential content.

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 0-argument list tool with an output schema, the description is adequate: it tells the agent that the tool lists audit rules with domain and severity. It could be more complete by hinting at the relationship to audit execution tools, but given the low complexity and existing schema, it is sufficient.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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+resource: it catalogs available audit rules, specifying the content (domain and severity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_audit_model (which runs audits) and pbi_list_autofix_rules (which lists autofix rules, not audit rules).

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 implies usage by saying 'available audit rules,' suggesting it is meant to be consulted before applying audits. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or connections to audit workflow tools.

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