pbi_list_perspectives

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the live layer requirement, the fact that TMDL extraction won't work, and the behavior when no perspectives exist (returns an empty list with explanation). This is valuable context for a list operation, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or auth requirements.

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 three short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose, then gives a key prerequisite and an edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no padding or 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?

For a simple list tool, the description is reasonably complete given that an output schema exists (so return structure need not be described). It covers purpose, a critical prerequisite (live layer), and the empty-result behavior. It does not explain how perspectives are structured or how to interpret results, but the output schema can handle that. Missing some context about connection prerequisites, but those are likely global.

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 sole parameter 'source' has a default 'live' and no schema description (0% coverage). The description's statement about requiring the live layer directly maps to this parameter, explaining why the default is 'live' and implying that other values (e.g., TMDL) would not succeed. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 function: "Lista las perspectivas del modelo" (lists the model's perspectives). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling list tools like pbi_list_tables, pbi_list_measures, etc., though it does not explicitly mention these alternatives. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 a clear usage condition: "Requiere la capa EN VIVO: el lector TMDL de este proyecto no las extrae" (requires the live layer; the TMDL reader does not extract them). This tells the agent when to use this tool and implicitly warns against using a TMDL-based approach. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the exclusion is clear.

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