pbi_list_visuals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output fields but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, how invalid pages are handled, or any limitations on the number of visuals returned. This leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 highly concise: one sentence for the tool's purpose and output fields, and one sentence for the parameter explanation. Every word earns its place, and the format is front-loaded.

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 simple signature (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, which slightly undermines completeness. It is minimally adequate for a straightforward 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 description adds meaningful context for the single `page` parameter by explaining it accepts an internal ID or visible page name. This goes beyond the bare schema title 'Page' and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it lists the visuals of a page and enumerates the output fields (id, type, position, fields, title). This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_get_visual (which likely retrieves a single visual) and pbi_list_report_pages (which lists pages).

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_get_visual or pbi_get_visual. The description only explains what the tool does, without mentioning appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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