pbi_model_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the summary contents and the source parameter values (live/pbip), which is useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention prerequisites like a selected model or an open Desktop connection beyond the source implication. These gaps could confuse an agent about side effects or required state.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear list for content items and a separate line for the parameter, making it easy to scan. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values don't need to be detailed. The description covers the tool's purpose, content, and the source parameter. However, it omits explicit prerequisites (e.g., the need for a selected model or Desktop state) and potential error conditions, which would make it fully complete. Given the simplicity of the tool, these are minor gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the `source` parameter: '`source`: 'live' (Desktop abierto) o 'pbip' (archivos TMDL).' This clearly defines the two valid values and their meanings, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 provides a compact model summary and enumerates the specific contents (counts, table sizes, measures per table, calculated columns, disconnected tables, bidirectional relationships, broken references). It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the first tool to call for orientation, which differentiates it from more targeted tools like pbi_list_relationships or pbi_analyze_model_quality.

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?

It explicitly states 'Es la primera tool que conviene llamar para orientarse en un modelo' (it's the first tool to call to orient in a model), giving clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, but the instruction to use it first provides strong guidance.

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