pbi_report_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly by listing informational outputs and explains the underlying constraint about cloning. It could mention side effects explicitly, but it is a non-mutating 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 succinct, front-loaded with the key outputs, and every sentence adds value. No irrelevant information.

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 informational tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and the main use case. It doesn't detail the output structure, but the schema exists, so this is acceptable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so with schema coverage at 100%, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. It adds context about the returned data, which is sufficient.

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 reports the PBIR version, theme, custom visuals, and clonable types, and explicitly distinguishes its purpose by explaining that it identifies which visual types are available for cloning, which sets it apart from generic reporting tools.

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 usage context by stating that only existing visual types can be created and this tool should be used before attempting to create visuals. It does not list alternative tools, but the guidance is contextually clear.

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