pbi_build_executive_page

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose whether this tool modifies existing pages, requires specific model context, or has side effects. It only describes the page composition (KPIs and chart), leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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 a single, concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified; while efficient in length, it lacks the richness needed for a tool with multiple parameters and implied behavior.

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 (5 parameters, 1 required) and lack of annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not mention the purpose, prerequisites, or the meaning of key parameters, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain parameters like seed, dry_run, category, and measures. It only hints that measures are used for KPIs, but leaves the other parameters completely unexplained.

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 indicates this tool creates an executive summary page containing a row of KPIs and a hero chart. Combined with the tool name 'pbi_build_executive_page', the purpose is evident. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pbi_build_evm_page, but the specific page type sets it apart.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_build_evm_page or pbi_generate_report_page. The description only implies its use for executive summaries but does not state conditions or exclusions.

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