pbi_preview_page_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states the tool does not write to the .pbip, establishing it as non-destructive. It also adds that the preview uses the same compiled output as the application, promising fidelity. However, it does not mention potential side effects like file creation, output format, or required project state, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 compact, with the main purpose in the first sentence and added context in the second. It avoids fluff and is easy to scan. Minor deduction for the second paragraph being slightly verbose in explaining fidelity, but overall it earns its place.

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 has nested object parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the high-level function and that it's non-destructive. However, it lacks context on what the output HTML looks like, how 'seed' fits in, and when to use this preview versus the many related siblings (e.g., pbi_preview_spec_html). This leaves the agent uncertain about operational details.

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%, and the description offers no explanation of the 'spec' or 'seed' parameters. The word 'spec' is repeated but not elaborated; 'seed' is entirely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level detail, making it hard for an agent to know what values to supply.

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 an HTML mockup of a page spec with final positions, and explicitly notes it does not write to the .pbip file. This gives a clear verb (mockup/preview) and resource (page spec). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'pbi_preview_spec_html', which likely serves a similar purpose, so there is slight ambiguity.

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 phrase 'No escribe al .pbip' implies this tool is for safe previewing before committing changes, and the second paragraph emphasizes the preview reflects exactly what would be written. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like pbi_apply_page_spec or pbi_preview_spec_html, nor any prerequisite or workflow context.

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