pbi_list_roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state this, nor does it mention any permissions, side effects, or how the 'source' parameter affects behavior. The only behavioral detail is 'por tabla' (by table), which is limited.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it concise. However, it under-specifies critical details such as parameter semantics, so it is not appropriately sized for the information needed. It is not bloated, but it omits important 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?

While the tool has a simple signature (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists (potentially covering return values), the description fails to explain the 'source' parameter and offers no context for its use. The absence of behavioral transparency and usage guidance leaves the description incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter 'source' with a default but no description (schema description coverage is 0%). The tool description completely omits any mention of 'source', leaving its meaning, allowed values, and effect entirely unexplained. The agent has no way to know what 'live' means or whether to alter it.

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 explicitly states the action ('Lista' / 'lists') and the resource ('roles de seguridad (RLS) y sus filtros por tabla' / 'security roles and their filters by table'). This clearly distinguishes it from other pbi_list_* tools like pbi_list_tables or pbi_list_measures.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextual framing.

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