bricks_connection_test

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavior: testing connection, verifying credentials, and checking plugin status. It implies no side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate for a diagnostic tool.

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, direct and to the point, with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action and followed by the recommended use case.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple diagnostic purpose, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and when to use it.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter information. The baseline is 3, but given the tool's simplicity, the description's clarity earns a 4.

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: testing the WordPress connection, verifying credentials, and checking plugin status. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bricks_active_site or bricks_switch_site.

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 advises to use this tool for diagnosing connection issues. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the diagnostic context is clear, and no alternative tools are mentioned. A minor omission, but overall good guidance.

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