pbi_measure_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (direct dependencies, broken references, transitive closure, and dependent measures) and discloses a key limitation (lexical analysis cannot detect dynamically constructed references). This is substantial transparency, though it doesn't discuss side effects or permissions, which are likely irrelevant for a read-only analysis tool.

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, with two sentences that serve complementary roles: the first summarizes the tool's purpose, the second details outputs and limitations. It is slightly redundant but well-structured and 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 complexity of dependency analysis and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's main behaviors, including return types and a limitation. It does not explain the `source` parameter, but the core functionality is well described. The output schema likely fills in return details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of `depth` (transitive closure limit) but does not explain `name` (obvious) or `source` (ambiguous). This partial coverage leaves a gap, but the most complex parameter is clarified.

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: it shows what a measure depends on and what depends on it. It specifies the exact resource (measure dependencies) and distinguishes it from sibling pbi_column_dependencies by explicitly mentioning measures. The verb 'Devuelve' (returns) is specific.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for analyzing measure dependencies, including direct and transitive dependencies. It also notes a limitation (lexical analysis only, not dynamic references), which implies when not to rely on it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like pbi_column_dependencies.

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