pbi_validate_page_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'No escribe nada' (writes nothing), confirming a non-mutating operation, and describes that errors include JSON paths for correction. This adds meaningful context beyond the tool's name, though it does not cover potential permission requirements or edge cases.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes two important behavioral details (non-mutation and error paths) in a compact format. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 is adequate for a validation tool with a single parameter and an output schema, covering validation scope, non-mutation, and error reporting. However, it lacks a definition of what constitutes a valid spec, which is a notable gap given the parameter is weakly defined in the schema. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input ambiguity affects completeness.

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 provides 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by defining what a 'spec' is or its expected structure. It only refers to 'un spec' without detailing required fields, formats, or constraints. The schema's 'additionalProperties: true' is unhelpful, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid spec parameter confidently.

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 states it validates a spec, specifically schema, references against the model, and geometry. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly indicates the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling validation tools like pbi_validate_measures or pbi_validate_pbip_project, but the focus on page spec is clear from the tool name and context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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