pbi_page_building_blocks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns (model, visual catalog, canvas, pages) and the informational value it provides ('te dice que campos y tipos de visual hay'). It does not mention side effects, but the wording strongly implies a read-only information retrieval.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and contents, followed by a usage directive. Every word earns its place; no waste or redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it returns (four categories of building-block material) and when to invoke it (before proposing a page). This is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the baseline. The description's focus on output content is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 a specific verb ('Entrega') and clearly identifies the resource: material for designing a page, listing model components, visual catalog, canvas, and pages. It also includes a usage directive ('Usa esto ANTES de proponer una hoja') that distinguishes it from sibling page-creation tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Usa esto ANTES de proponer una hoja', which tells the agent to call it before proposing or creating a page. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for selection among page-related siblings.

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