pbi_validate_generated_page

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 discloses what the tool checks (broken references, geometry) and clarifies its depth beyond simple write success. However, it does not mention side effects, output behavior, or error handling, leaving some 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?

Two short, direct sentences. Front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by usage context. Every word 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?

The description is reasonably complete for a validation tool: it states what is validated and when to use it. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the missing parameter explanation is a notable gap in overall context.

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 single parameter 'page' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'page' refers to (e.g., name, ID, or reference). This leaves the agent without enough information to correctly provide the parameter.

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's purpose: verify an already-written page for broken references and geometry. It distinguishes this from related tools like pbi_validate_page_spec by emphasizing 'YA escrita' (already written) and the post-spec usage context.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: after applying a spec, to validate the actual result beyond just write success. It does not name alternative tools but the timing guidance is clear. Slight deduction for not explicitly saying when not to use it.

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