pbi_export_page_html

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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety or side-effect information. The description adds that the page must exist (implying an error for nonexistent pages) and specifies the output content (layout + fields), but it does not disclose whether the HTML is returned directly or written to a file, nor any potential side effects.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 description is sparse. It lacks details on return format, side effects, and parameter format. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps in usage 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 clarify the 'page' parameter. It only indicates that the page must exist, but does not specify whether the parameter expects a page name, ID, or other identifier. This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 states the tool exports an HTML layout of an existing page, including layout and fields of each visual. This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like pbi_list_visuals or pbi_get_visual, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for exporting an HTML mockup of an existing page but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools such as pbi_preview_page_spec.

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