pbi_generate_page_spec

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the output is an editable draft requiring review and validation, and it enumerates the allowed preset values. This helps set expectations without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 compact and well-formatted, with a clear first sentence, a backtick-delimited parameter list, and a concise use instruction. Every sentence adds value and there is no 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?

The description provides a clear workflow (generate, review, validate) and references an output schema, but it misses the required page_name parameter and does not mention defaults or constraints. Given the tool's moderate complexity and output schema presence, the description is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains preset, measures, and category, but omits the required page_name parameter and the width/height parameters. This partial compensation is better than nothing but leaves critical parameters undocumented.

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 'Genera un borrador de spec' (generates a draft spec) from a preset and fields, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the subsequent validation step with pbi_validate_page_spec.

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 implies usage as the generation step by noting the result should be reviewed and passed to pbi_validate_page_spec, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_preview_page_spec or pbi_apply_page_spec. It provides a workflow hint but no exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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