pbi_generate_pdf_report

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

Annotations do not convey any safety or behavior hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool does not invent graphics when no captures are provided, reopens the PDF with pypdf, and renders the first page to PNG if Poppler is available, plus states the output directory. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 four sentences, each contributing useful information: main purpose, input constraints, behavior when captures are absent, and output details. It is dense but not bloated, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters and an output schema, the description gives enough to understand the core workflow and output location, but it does not explain several parameters or their interplay. The output schema covers return values, yet the lack of parameter descriptions makes the tool less than fully self-contained.

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 must compensate. It only elaborates on `capture_paths` (accepted formats, max 20, example source) and indirectly hints at `report_type` via 'executive, technical, or audit' and `include_audit` via 'audit information.' The remaining parameters (`title`, `source`, `file_name`, `max_findings`) are left unexplained, leaving a significant gap.

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 'generates an executive, technical, or audit PDF with captures' and explains it composes existing model, page, visual, and audit information. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `pbi_generate_technical_documentation` by focusing on PDF generation with screenshots and references `pbi_validate_desktop_render` for input paths.

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 provides clear context by specifying that `capture_paths` should contain paths returned by `pbi_validate_desktop_render`, implying use after rendering desktop captures. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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