pbi_preview_page_spec

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

With annotations all false and unhelpful, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool does not write to the .pbip and that the preview accurately reflects the final compiled output, which is valuable transparency about side effects and reliability.

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 very concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds essential accuracy details without redundancy or fluff.

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 explains the tool's purpose and output fidelity, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the complete lack of input parameter explanation and no explicit contrast with the very similar sibling tool pbi_preview_spec_html leave meaningful gaps.

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% and the description does not explain the 'spec' or 'seed' parameters. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description needed to compensate but did not address parameter semantics at all.

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 creates an HTML mockup of the spec with final positions and explicitly notes it does not write to the .pbip file. This distinguishes it from apply/write tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling pbi_preview_spec_html.

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 the tool is meant for previewing exactly what will be written before committing, which gives contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pbi_preview_spec_html or pbi_validate_page_spec.

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