pbi_list_report_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the output fields and the active report scope, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, potential errors, or behavior when no report is active. This is adequate but not rich.

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 in Spanish that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly conveys the purpose and output. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 simple parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists and what fields are returned. It could be more explicit about edge cases, but the scope is well-defined and sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning about the implicit 'active report' state, but there are no parameter details to elaborate.

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 verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'paginas del informe PBIR activo' (pages of the active PBIR report), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, size, number of visuals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_list_tables or pbi_list_visuals.

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: it is used to list pages of the active report. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific scope leaves little ambiguity about when to use it.

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