pbi_detect_layout_issues

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

The description adds behavior beyond the read-only annotation by listing concrete issue categories and noting that 'Cada hallazgo trae su evidencia geometrica' (each finding includes geometric evidence). It also repeats the read-only hint but does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, followed by a concise bullet-like list of detections and a one-line note about evidence. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the tool's single optional parameter, output schema, and read-only annotation, the description is complete: it states scope (one/all pages), what issues are found, and that findings include geometric evidence. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that the page parameter targets one page or all pages ('de una pagina (o de todas)'). The default null meaning is clear: omitting the parameter diagnoses all pages. This directly clarifies the only parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Diagnostica la geometria de una pagina' and enumerates exact layout issues detected (overlaps, off-canvas visuals, small sizes, margins, inconsistent spacing, Z-order problems, empty/saturated pages). This clearly differentiates it from sibling audit or documentation tools.

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 phrase 'Diagnostica la geometria de una pagina (o de todas)' provides clear context for when to use this tool: to diagnose layout geometry on one or all pages. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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