bricks_check_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosures. It reveals that the tool uses HTTP HEAD requests and checks for specific error types, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or any rate limits. As a checking tool, safety information is implied but not explicit.

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, focused sentence that conveys core functionality without redundancy. It could potentially include more structured sections (e.g., return value details) but as a concise description, it effectively communicates the tool's purpose and method.

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 lacks details about the output, which is critical since there is no output schema. It does not state whether the tool returns a list of broken links, counts, or just a success/failure. This omission leaves agents uncertain about what to expect from the tool's response.

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 high coverage (100%) for the single parameter page_id, with a clear description. The tool description adds no new information beyond reinforcing that the parameter identifies the page. Therefore, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 the tool checks for broken URLs on a Bricks page, specifying the types of failures (404, timeouts, DNS failures) and that it tests both content and element links via HTTP HEAD requests. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like bricks_security_audit or bricks_seo_analyze.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with other tools. It leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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