bricks_readability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only analysis (no side effects mentioned) and specifies the type of analysis (readability scores). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify data or require specific permissions, which would strengthen transparency.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, and output. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Analyze page content readability') and follows with specifics.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the expected return values (word count, sentence length, syllable stats, readability grade). It could be enhanced by clarifying the data format (e.g., as an object with keys) but is sufficient for an agent to understand what information will be provided.

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 only one parameter (page_id) with a clear description ('WordPress page/post ID'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 the tool analyzes page content readability using specific algorithms (Flesch-Kincaid for English, Flesch-Amstad for German) and lists the returned metrics (word count, sentence length, syllable stats, readability grade). It differentiates from sibling seo tools by focusing specifically on readability scoring rather than general 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 implies the tool is for analyzing readability of a page, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like bricks_seo_analyze or bricks_seo_audit. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context to inference.

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