pbi_lint_report_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that issues are never ignored (only warnings) and explains parameter behavior. It does not cover auth or side effects, but for a read-like linting tool, this is adequate.

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: a brief intro followed by a clear list of parameters with explanations. Each sentence adds value, and it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the relatively simple purpose, the description covers most aspects. However, missing descriptions for extract_folder and page parameters slightly reduce 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains three of five parameters (ignore_warnings, only_pages, max_visuals_per_page) but omits extract_folder (required) and page. This adds value but has gaps.

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 detects specific layout issues (overlaps, excessive whitespace, tiny visuals, missing titles) with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover other PBI operations.

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 explains when to use optional knobs like ignore_warnings and only_pages, providing context for silencing noise or restricting scans. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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