bricks_get_page_assets

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure and where CSS/JS are output (wp_head, wp_footer). It does not explicitly state idempotency or lack of side effects, but the read-only nature is implied. Could mention that no state changes occur.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and return structure, the second adds output context and a requirement. Every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return structure, output locations, and a requirement. It is nearly complete but could mention that the tool is safe to call (read-only) given the lack of annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the only parameter (page_id as WordPress page/post ID). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get structured per-page assets', enumerates the return fields (css, js_deps, js, raw_footer), and provides context on output locations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bricks_get_page (which likely returns page content) and bricks_get_page_settings.

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 mentions a prerequisite (Bricks API Bridge v2.3+) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bricks_get_page or bricks_update_page_assets. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are given.

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