bricks_validate_bem

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

Description implies read-only validation without side effects. Since no annotations exist, it carries the burden. Could be more explicit about being non-destructive, but 'validate' and 'reports' sufficiently indicate no mutations.

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?

Description is concise (one sentence) and lists key checks efficiently. However, it could be structured to separate purpose from specifics for clarity. Still, no wasted 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?

Missing output schema and lack of explanation on return value. 'Reports structure issues' is vague; agent doesn't know if it returns a list, a boolean, or a report. Annotations also absent, leaving context incomplete.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'prefix'. Schema already explains filtering, so description provides no added value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates global classes against BEM convention and lists specific checks (naming patterns, orphaned blocks/elements, conflicts with utility classes, structure issues). It distinguishes from siblings like bricks_validate_elements which validate elements, not BEM classes.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (use when you want to validate BEM compliance of global classes), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives like bricks_generate_bem_component for creation.

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