pbi_list_measures

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

With no annotations, the description provides moderate transparency by specifying DAX and format are included. However, it does not disclose pagination, limits, ordering, or behavior when no table is specified (e.g., does it list all measures?).

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 a single, well-structured sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one optional parameter, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key output characteristics (DAX, format). Could mention default behavior (lists all measures) but not necessary.

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 has no parameter descriptions, so the description adds value by explaining the table parameter is for optional filtering. This clarifies the only parameter's role.

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 lists measures and includes DAX and format, distinguishing it from create/update/delete siblings. However, it implicitly assumes the model context is understood, which could be clearer.

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 mentions optional filtering to one table, giving some usage context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pbi_get_model or pbi_model_lineage, nor does it provide any prerequisites.

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