pbi_page_building_blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes what the tool returns (model, visual catalog, canvas, pages) and implies a read-only informational role, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites. 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 two sentences: the first lists what the tool delivers, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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 zero-parameter information tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's purpose, contents, and usage timing. It does not elaborate on the structure of the output, but the output schema likely covers that. Minor gaps: it does not mention whether the tool requires an active model or connection, but overall it provides enough context.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are no parameters to explain. It effectively communicates that the tool requires no input.

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: 'Entrega el material para diseniar una hoja' (delivers the material to design a page), and enumerates its contents (model, visual catalog, canvas, pages). This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on individual aspects (e.g., list_tables, list_visuals) by providing a combined building-blocks view.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: 'Usa esto ANTES de proponer una hoja' (use this BEFORE proposing a page), and explains the benefit: 'te dice que campos y tipos de visual hay' (it tells you what fields and visual types exist). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the timing guidance is clear.

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