pbi_list_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what will be returned (columns, types, visibility, counts) and explains the `source` parameter options ('live' vs 'pbip'). This gives meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only implications or other constraints.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear parameter explanation. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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 with one parameter and an output schema present, the description fully covers the necessary information: what is listed and how the source parameter behaves. No additional explanation of return values is needed because the output schema exists.

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 schema provides only a parameter name and default with no description (coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining that `source` can be 'live' (open model, default) or 'pbip' (TMDL files), covering all possible values and their meanings.

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 verb ('Lista' = lists) and the resource ('tablas' = tables) along with specific details (columns, types, visibility, counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities like relationships or 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?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does, but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives. However, the specific purpose of listing tables with metadata is enough for the agent to infer appropriate usage, so it qualifies as 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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