bricks_security_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is read from 'WordPress own update transients, no external network call' and requires admin credentials. This gives sufficient transparency about its read-only nature and data source, though it doesn't mention potential errors or side effects.

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 that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every phrase adds value—'exact software inventory', 'no external network call', 'Requires admin credentials'. No unnecessary words.

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 read-only inventory tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (versions and available updates) and how it works (from local transients). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior, though it could mention the response format or that it's a single object.

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 zero parameters, so the description has no parameter information to add. The baseline for no parameters is 4, as there is no need for additional explanation.

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 it provides 'exact software inventory' of the site, listing specific components (WordPress core, PHP, Bricks, active theme, all plugins/themes with versions and available updates). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on inventory rather than auditing or other actions, and adds specificity like 'no external network call'.

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 explicitly says 'Use to feed version-based checks or to see what is outdated' and mentions 'Requires admin credentials', providing clear usage context and a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the usage intent is well communicated.

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