pbi_describe_page

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

The description references a parameter 'manager' that is not defined in the input schema, creating confusion. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive (no annotations), nor any auth or rate limits. The conditional behavior is poorly specified, leading to potential misuse.

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, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and details in the second. However, it wastes space on an undefined parameter (manager) and lacks parameter explanations, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 covers the output structure well (given an output schema exists), but it fails to explain the input parameters, which are critical for correct invocation. The omission of parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance make it incomplete for an agent to use autonomously.

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 explain the two required parameters (page, extract_folder). It does not; it only describes the output structure. No information about what values these parameters accept or how they affect the result.

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 it returns a structured snapshot of a report page, listing specific components per visual (id/type/position, bindings, formatting, binding_health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_get_page (which likely returns a simpler page structure) and pbi_extract_report (full report extraction).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_get_page or pbi_extract_report. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The mention of 'when manager is supplied' is unclear since manager is not in the input schema.

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