bricks_list_global_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool lists classes and returns certain data, implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, require authentication, or have rate limits. The description is adequate but minimal for a read-only 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?

The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, then lists the return fields. Every word is purposeful and concise.

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 list tool with no output schema, one optional parameter, and no nested objects, the description is sufficient. It covers the main action and return data. However, it could mention if the list is paginated or any limits, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 one parameter 'search' with a description covering its purpose (filtering by name). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a 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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'global CSS classes', and specifies what is returned ('class names, settings, and usage count'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bricks_create_global_class, bricks_update_global_class, bricks_get_global_class_usage, and bricks_delete_global_class.

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 implies the tool is for listing all global classes but does not explicitly state when to use it or when to use alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided. The presence of sibling tools for specific actions provides context, but the description itself lacks direct usage guidelines.

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