pbi_generate_report_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavior: it validates suggested fields and explicitly does not invent fields, creates cards and charts, applies an indicated layout, and returns a summary. It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing pages or required permissions, but the creation behavior is clearly described.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. It communicates the core action, the validation constraint, the visual composition, the layout handling, and the return type without unnecessary detail.

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 high-level workflow and mentions a returned summary, and an output schema exists. However, for a tool with 6 parameters, no parameter explanations, no annotations, and many sibling page-building tools, the description lacks key input semantics and usage context, making it only partially 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It only indirectly references 'layout' and 'campos sugeridos', but does not explain page_name, objective, request_id, available_fields_hint, or create_missing_measures. Most parameters remain semantically opaque.

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's purpose: it generates a report page with suggested visuals from the model and describes the concrete steps (reviews the model, validates suggested fields, adds measure cards and one chart per category, applies the layout, returns a summary). It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like pbi_generate_page_spec or pbi_build_dashboard.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'a partir del modelo' implies a use case, but it does not mention when to prefer pbi_generate_page_spec, pbi_apply_page_spec, or the pbi_build_* tools, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.

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