pbi_list_page_presets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful conceptual context: presets describe the 'INTENTION' of a page (e.g., KPIs at top, chart in focus, detail at bottom) and that the user selects concrete fields. This clarifies what the returned data represents. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any output format details, though the output schema exists.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides valuable context about preset semantics without unnecessary filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main point.

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 tool is a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains what presets are and how they relate to the page-building workflow (user chooses fields). It does not explicitly describe the return structure, but the output schema covers that, and the description's conceptual context is sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. It adds no parameter-related information because none exists to add.

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 resource ('page presets') and their composition ('the blocks that compose each one'), making it easy to understand the tool's scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on presets as high-level page structures, not individual blocks or other model metadata. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists', relying on the word 'disponibles' (available) to imply listing.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_page_building_blocks or pbi_create_page_from_spec. It explains what a preset is but does not state, for example, 'Use this to review preset templates before composing a page.' The context is implied but not actionable.

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