pbi_generate_report_page

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 transparently outlines the workflow: reviewing the model, validating fields (explicitly stating it does not invent fields), adding cards and charts, arranging the layout, and returning a summary. This adds valuable context beyond the schema, though it omits side effects like whether it overwrites an existing page or how 'create_missing_measures' affects behavior.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence states the main purpose, followed by a clear step-by-step breakdown, and ends with the return value. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a complex 6-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives a solid high-level overview but lacks operational context: it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an open project or selected model), what happens if the page already exists, or the meaning of 'objective' and 'request_id'. The output schema covers return details, but the description could still be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by referencing 'layout indicado' (layout), 'campos sugeridos' (available_fields_hint), and 'medidas' (related to measures), but it does not explain 'objective', 'request_id', or clarify that 'create_missing_measures' controls whether missing measures are created. This leaves several parameters semantically under-specified.

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 generates a page with proposed visuals from the model, using a specific verb and resource. It includes the key action of creating a page and adding visual elements. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'pbi_create_page_from_spec' or 'pbi_compose_page', so it misses the top score.

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 what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus the many alternative page-creation tools (e.g., pbi_create_page_from_spec, pbi_generate_page_spec, pbi_apply_page_spec). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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