get_report_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and usefully discloses that parsing works offline without Power BI Desktop running. It also clarifies the scope boundary (no data model), though it does not explicitly state read-only/no-modification behavior or file-access requirements.

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 front-loaded, compact, and has no wasted sentences. The key capability, offline behavior, and scope limitation are all communicated efficiently.

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-value details do not need to be repeated. The description covers the main behavior and boundary, but with no annotations and a minimally documented parameter, a little more information about input expectations or safety would make it fully complete.

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%, so the description should compensate for the sole parameter. It implies that pbix_path refers to a .pbix file, but it does not specify whether the path must be absolute or relative, whether the file must be closed, or any other path semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: parse a .pbix file's report layout. It also enumerates the returned structure (pages and per-page visuals with type, title, and fields), which clearly distinguishes it from model-querying sibling 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?

It gives a clear use case (offline report-layout extraction) and an explicit exclusion: it does not include the data model, so live-model tools should be used for tables/measures/DAX. The alternative is named as a category rather than specific sibling tools, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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