pbi_build_evm_page

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

Annotations provide no meaningful behavioral hints (all false), so the description must carry the burden. It usefully discloses that the tool validates measures and will warn instead of generating a nonsense page. However, it does not mention the behavior of the dry_run parameter, whether the tool modifies an existing report/page, or other side effects, leaving 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 description is two short sentences in Spanish, front-loaded with the page type and immediately followed by key validation behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions and no explanation of prerequisites or how parameters like `dry_run`, `seed`, or `category` affect the result. The description covers only the `measures` parameter and validation behavior, which is not enough for reliable invocation in a large sibling-tool context.

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 6 undocumented parameters. It clarifies the `measures` parameter by listing expected types, but it leaves `name`, `seed`, `dry_run`, `category`, and `request_id` completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly set all parameters, especially the critical `dry_run` flag.

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 identifies the tool as generating an EVM page and specifies the expected measure types (PV, EV, AC, CPI, SPI). The phrase 'generar una página' explicitly states the action, and the EVM-specific scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_build_executive_page.

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 gives clear context for use: it should be used when EVM measures are present, and it warns if it cannot recognize them rather than producing a meaningless page. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the usage context is evident.

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