pbi_build_dashboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: it outlines the workflow (analyze model, compose spec, calculate layout, generate preview, apply in transaction, verify) and importantly states that dry_run=true (default) stops after preview. This reveals the tool's safe-by-default execution mode but does not detail side effects of applying or what verification entails.

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 two short paragraphs with no wasted words. The opening line is a crisp purpose statement, followed by a compact step list and a critical flag note. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool is complex (6 parameters, multi-step workflow) with no annotations and an output schema that likely defines return values. The description provides a high-level workflow and dry_run behavior but omits essential details like how the 'objetivo' is expressed in parameters, what presets are available, and prerequisites such as requiring a selected model. It is a minimal viable description but has clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 for parameter meanings. It only explains dry_run (default true, stops after preview), leaving name, measures, seed, preset, and category undefined. This is insufficient for an agent to know what values are expected or how they relate to the 'objetivo'.

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, using the verb 'Construye' with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_build_executive_page or pbi_create_visual by emphasizing the high-level 'objetivo' approach.

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 provides clear context for when to use: when you have an objective rather than building from primitives. It also gives explicit guidance about dry_run default behavior, informing the agent it can preview before applying. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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