review_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the compressed model and Power Query container are never read and that passwords/tokens are returned as [REDACTED]. It does not discuss output size, truncation behavior, or what a listed-parts response looks like, leaving a few behavioral gaps.

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 core action, the allowed file types, and the critical two-step .pbix/.pbit procedure are all front-loaded, and every sentence adds information. The second sentence is dense and chains several clauses, but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the file-type, member-listing, exclusion and redaction details cover most of what an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is the pagination/truncation semantics of offset and max_chars, which an agent must infer when reading large files.

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 carries the full burden: it explains `member` well with a concrete example (Report/Layout) and the two-step listing pattern, and file extensions imply `path` format. However, `offset` and `max_chars` (the truncation window, presumably) are never mentioned, so half the parameters remain undefined for the agent.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Read one Power BI file's TEXT without changing anything') and enumerates exactly which file types qualify (.pbip/.pbir/.pbids/.rdl/.tmdl, PBIR .json in a *.Report folder, a part of .pbix/.pbit). That makes it distinguishable as a raw-text reader from the structured-analysis siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with closer siblings such as get_report_layout or read_mashup_traces.

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?

Gives clear procedural guidance for the tricky case: for .pbix/.pbit call first WITHOUT `member` to list parts, then WITH `member` (e.g. Report/Layout) to read one. It also states exclusions (DataModel and DataMashup are never read), which steers the agent away from fruitless calls. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling for cases this tool cannot serve.

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