bricks_internal_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (Get), the mechanism (keyword overlap), and output limit (top 10). However, it does not specify whether the input page must be published or if suggestions include drafts, nor does it mention caching or real-time behavior.

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: first states purpose and mechanism, second specifies output format. No redundant information. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains purpose and output count but does not specify the format of returned suggestions (e.g., page IDs, URLs, titles). This omission leaves a gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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% (page_id described as 'WordPress page/post ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it simply says 'for a page'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 gets internal linking suggestions for a page using keyword overlap and returns the top 10 most relevant pages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bricks_check_links (which checks link validity) and bricks_seo_analyze (broader SEO analysis).

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 implicitly suggests use when internal linking suggestions are needed, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites (e.g., page must be published for suggestions from other published pages). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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