pbi_list_desktop_models

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool detects the Analysis Services engine for each open report and returns specific fields, using non-mutating verbs like 'Lista' and 'Detecta' that imply a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything', but for a list/discovery tool this is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function, and the second adds the key output details without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list/discovery tool.

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 simplicity, zero parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is listed, how discovery works, and what the return includes. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that Power BI Desktop must be running, though 'abiertos localmente' conveys this context.

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 and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add value beyond the schema when there are no parameters.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('modelos de Power BI Desktop abiertos localmente'), then adds useful output detail: it detects the Analysis Services engine on localhost:<port> and returns port, connection string, catalog, and table count. This distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_model_summary or pbi_select_model by emphasizing local open desktop models.

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 gives a clear scope ('abiertos localmente') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives such as pbi_list_tables, pbi_model_summary, or pbi_select_model. It does not mention exclusions or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, so the usage context is only implied.

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