pbi_build_dashboard

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

The description outlines the multi-step process (analyze, compose spec, calculate layout, preview, apply transaction, verify) and explains the dry_run default behavior. Annotations are all false and add little, so the description carries the burden and does so effectively, though it could detail failure handling or what 'applies' entials.

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 extremely concise: three sentences with a clear opening purpose, a workflow overview, and a critical default behavior note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (multi-step dashboard building), the description provides a high-level workflow but omits what 'objetivo' maps to in parameters, preconditions, or expected output. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value details, but more guidance on how to phrase the objective would improve completeness.

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 must compensate. It explicitly explains dry_run and references preset, but leaves name, measures, seed, category, and request_id undefined. The phrase 'desde un objetivo' vaguely implies name/measures define the goal, but this is not concrete enough for reliable parameter understanding.

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 builds a complete dashboard from an objective, not from primitives. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_create_visual and pbi_compose_page, which are lower-level. The verb 'Construye' and resource 'dashboard completo' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for high-level dashboard creation when there is a defined objective, contrasting with primitive operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'no desde primitivas' phrase provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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