pbi_detect_layout_issues

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly states 'Solo lectura' (read-only) and clarifies that each finding includes geometric evidence, which informs expected output. It does not discuss error handling or performance, but for a read-only diagnostic this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: the first states the purpose and read-only nature, the second enumerates specific detected issues and evidence. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or 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 a single optional parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, scope, non-destructive nature, and the types of findings. It could go deeper on parameter formatting, but the current level is adequate for a straightforward diagnostic tool.

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?

The schema has no description for the 'page' parameter (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'de una pagina (o de todas)' explains that the optional page parameter targets a specific page or all pages when omitted/null, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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 uses the specific verb 'Diagnostica' (diagnoses) and resource 'geometria de una pagina' while listing concrete issues (solapamientos, visuales fuera del lienzo, etc.). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools that modify or document layout, making its diagnostic role 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 read-only nature and scope ('una pagina o de todas') imply when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other layout tools like pbi_normalize_page_layout or pbi_audit_report_only. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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