pbi_list_report_pages

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Lista' and adds the 'activo' constraint, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe what happens if no report is active. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, compact sentence in Spanish that front-loads the action and resource, and lists the output fields. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is immediately understandable.

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 simple nature of the tool (0 params, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It specifies the active report scope and the returned fields. It omits explicit preconditions like requiring an open project, but these are implied by 'activo' and may be covered by the output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain, but it does provide useful context about the result fields, which is beneficial given the schema is empty.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lista' and identifies the resource as 'paginas del informe PBIR activo', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_list_visuals or pbi_list_tables. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, nombre, tamano, nº visuales), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by specifying the scope 'informe PBIR activo', indicating when to use the tool: to list pages of the currently active report. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it over other page manipulation tools.

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