pbi_list_autofix_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether there are side effects, or what the output format resembles. For a list tool, it lacks explicit behavioral context beyond implying the return of rule details.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief but could be more explicit about the action, slightly reducing structural clarity.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema, so the description covers the core content. However, it lacks usage guidelines and explicit behavioral notes, making it minimally complete for a list tool.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource as rules with automatic correction and specifies that it covers what each rule consists of. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'returns', leaving the tool's operation vague. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pbi_list_audit_rules beyond the 'autofix' modifier.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_list_audit_rules or pbi_apply_audit_fixes. The description only states the content, not the context or purpose for invoking the tool.

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