pbi_export_page_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Exporta' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not state side effects, return behavior, or whether any model/page context is required. The output content (layout + fields) is mentioned, but this is minimal.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and includes clarifying parenthetical detail. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary content.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives the core purpose and output nature (HTML skeleton with layout and fields). However, it omits usage context, parameter format, and any behavioral caveats, leaving it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 one required parameter 'page' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only indicates the page must already exist, which adds a constraint, but it does not explain the expected identifier format, how to specify the page, or any examples. This is thin semantic guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Exporta') and a precise resource ('MAQUETA HTML de una pagina EXISTENTE'), further clarified by the parenthetical '(layout + campos de cada visual)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that generate, preview, or create page specs.

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 states the page must be 'EXISTENTE', implying this is for existing pages rather than new ones, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like pbi_generate_page_spec or pbi_preview_page_spec are not referenced.

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