pbi_generate_report_page

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that fields are validated and not invented, that the page gets cards and charts, and that a summary is returned. It does not mention side effects like overwriting pages or creating measures when create_missing_measures is true.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short process list. Each sentence adds useful information, though the phrasing could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, the return summary need not be over-explained. However, the description omits critical context about which parameters control the generation, prerequisites (e.g., selected model), and how this tool differs from similar page-creation siblings. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 compensate, but it does not mention any of the six parameters by name. Only 'layout indicado' loosely alludes to the layout parameter, and no guidance is given for page_name, objective, request_id, available_fields_hint, or create_missing_measures.

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 a report page with visuals proposed from the model, using specific verbs like 'Genera' and 'crea'. It outlines key actions (validating fields, adding cards and charts) but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pbi_compose_page or pbi_create_page_from_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 when an AI-generated page layout from the model is desired, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The step-by-step process gives some context, but no exclusions or comparison to related tools.

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