pbi_preview_page_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool is non-destructive ('No escribe al .pbip') and that the preview is exactly what would be written, drawing data from the same compiled source. This is transparent about side effects and accuracy, though it does not mention any other constraints or side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second clarifies non-mutation; the third explains the preview's fidelity. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for practical use. It does not explain how to construct the required 'spec' parameter (beyond listing its content categories) or what the 'seed' parameter does. It also lacks any prerequisites or context on when this preview is appropriate relative to the broader workflow. The description covers the tool's behavior well but not its input requirements sufficiently.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions that the spec includes types, titles, fields, sizes, and positions, giving some context for the 'spec' parameter. However, it does not explain the structure of the spec object, and the optional 'seed' parameter is completely unmentioned, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 an HTML mockup of a page spec with final positions, and explicitly notes it does not write to the .pbip file. This makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from write tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named 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 usage: use it to view an accurate preview before writing, since it states the preview matches exactly what would be written and that it does not write to the .pbip. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives, are provided.

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