pbi_detect_layout_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior and the nature of findings (each finding includes geometric evidence), providing transparency about what the tool does and returns.

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, using two short sentences to convey purpose, read-only nature, detected issues, and output evidence. No superfluous content.

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 that an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what issues are detected and that evidence is provided. It could be more explicit about scope or prerequisites, but for a read-only diagnostic tool it is adequately complete.

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 description adds meaning to the `page` parameter by indicating it can target a specific page or all pages when omitted, which clarifies the null default. However, it does not specify the expected format of the page identifier, and schema coverage is 0%.

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 as diagnosing page geometry, listing specific issues it detects (overlaps, off-canvas visuals, sizes, margins, spacing, Z-order, empty/saturated pages). It explicitly states 'Solo lectura' (read-only), distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify or document layout.

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 implies usage for diagnosing layout issues before editing, and notes the read-only nature, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pbi_normalize_page_layout or pbi_document_report_layout. The context is clear but exclusions are not explicit.

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