pbi_preview_spec_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly guarantees non-modification of the .pbip, specifies the return value (HTML path), and shows the expected spec structure. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but the key safety and output behaviors are clearly disclosed.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a spec template. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes the necessary structural detail without any fluff 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 single-parameter preview tool, the description covers the purpose, the spec format, and the output (HTML path). An output schema exists to handle detailed return structure. It lacks some context on prerequisites or edge cases, but the core information needed to use the tool effectively is present.

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 only defines 'spec' as a generic object with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by providing a concrete template: `{page_name, canvas?, layout?, visuals:[{type,title,fields,position?}]}`, adding meaningful structural detail that is absent from the schema.

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 it generates an HTML mockup of a proposed page and explicitly notes it does not write anything to the .pbip file, distinguishing it from creation or application tools. The verb 'Genera' plus the specific resource 'MAQUETA HTML de una hoja propuesta' is precise and 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 conveys a clear use case: previewing a proposed page design as HTML in a browser without altering the project. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives like pbi_preview_page_spec or pbi_apply_page_spec, nor does it provide exclusions for when not to use this tool.

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