bricks_list_fonts

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, performance implications, or whether it includes all font metadata. The description inadequately compensates for missing annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. Ideal conciseness for a simple parameterless operation.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal but states the core function. However, it lacks information about the return structure (e.g., font names, IDs) or any usage hints, making it only partially complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description's mention of 'all custom fonts' serves as implicit scope clarification. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no parameter details are needed and the description adds minor value by specifying the resource.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom fonts registered in Bricks Builder'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools that target other resources like pages, templates, or media.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., bricks_register_font, bricks_upload_font, or other list tools). The description lacks context for decision-making.

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