pbi_preview_spec_html

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It explicitly states the tool does not modify the .pbip and returns the HTML path, which covers safety and output. However, it omits details like where the HTML file is saved or whether it cleans up artifacts, so transparency is moderate.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences covering purpose, non-destructive behavior, the spec shape, and the return value. No redundant information.

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 tool is simple with one nested parameter and an output schema available. The description covers purpose, spec structure, and the output path, which is sufficient for a preview tool. Potential prerequisites or error handling are not mentioned but are likely minor.

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 only defines 'spec' as an object with additionalProperties true, providing zero field descriptions. The description compensates with a concrete spec template listing page_name, canvas, layout, and visuals with their subfields, giving essential structure to an otherwise opaque parameter.

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 proposed page, with a specific verb and resource. It also notes that it does not write to the .pbip, distinguishing it from apply/create tools.

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: use it to review a design in a browser before committing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the 'no write to .pbip' hint, so it falls short of a full when/when-not explanation.

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