pbi_validate_desktop_render

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

Even though annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it opens and closes Desktop conditionally, reuses existing sessions, never closes the user's window if already open, closes Desktop even on failure if it was opened by the tool, and writes to 'outputs/desktop_captures'. It also clarifies it does not bring Desktop to the foreground, which is a safety-relevant behavior not captured in annotations.

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 yet information-dense, with no wasted words. It opens with the main purpose, then explains complementary value, safety guarantees, and session lifecycle in a logical sequence. Each sentence contributes meaningful detail, and the paragraph is well-structured in Spanish.

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 has moderate complexity with 4 parameters and an output schema, but the description covers the core behavior, side effects, and safety aspects. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required. The main gap is parameter-level detail for 'timeout' and 'capture_timeout', but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool appropriately.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'path' by referring to opening a .pbip/.pbix, and 'reuse_open' via the session-reuse behavior. However, it does not explicitly describe 'timeout' or 'capture_timeout' semantics, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action: 'Abre un .pbip/.pbix y captura su ventana real sin depender del foco.' It identifies the resource (.pbip/.pbix), the action (opens and captures), and the unique scope (without relying on focus). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by positioning it as 'la comprobacion visual automatizable que complementa al validador PBIR.'

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 for when to use the tool: it is the automated visual check that complements the PBIR validator. It further explains that it cannot accidentally photograph other windows, making it safe for background use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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