pbi_validate_generated_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about checking broken references and geometry, and that it performs deep validation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and provides usage context in the second sentence. Every word earns its place with no 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?

While the description gives a clear usage scenario, it omits critical parameter semantics and behavioral guarantees (e.g., read-only status). The existence of an output schema helps, but the agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation without knowing how to specify 'page'.

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 single parameter 'page' is a string with no schema description, and the description does not explain what value to pass (e.g., page ID, name, or path). With 0% schema coverage and no compensation in the description, the agent is left guessing the parameter format.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: verifying an already written page for broken references and geometry. It distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools by explicitly noting it runs after applying a spec, focusing on the generated page rather than the spec itself.

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 states explicitly when to use it ('después de aplicar un spec') and clarifies that it checks actual validity, not just whether writing succeeded. It implies it is not for validating the spec itself, though it does not name an alternative tool.

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