bricks_search_elements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the search functionality but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects), nor does it mention any rate limits or performance implications. It does not contradict anything.

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, clear sentence. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no wasted words. Every part adds value.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain what the search returns (list of elements, IDs, etc.). For a search tool, some guidance on return format is helpful. However, the description is adequate for basic understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description lists the categories (text, type, class, settings) but adds no specific meaning beyond what the schema provides for details like limit, setting_key, or setting_value. Baseline is 3.

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 searches Bricks elements across all pages, listing specific search criteria (text content, element type, CSS class, settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bricks_search_pages (pages) and bricks_search_templates (templates).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the phrase 'across all pages' implies scope, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for specific use cases (e.g., validating elements).

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