Is Brick

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait: the result is not a single boolean but reports the two conditions separately, so a negative answer identifies the failed condition. It does not describe return format or invalid-input behavior, but the output schema presumably covers response shape.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The definition is front-loaded in a question form, and the second sentence adds genuinely useful behavioral detail about separate condition reporting.

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 one-parameter predicate tool with full parameter schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It defines the property, explains the input's accepted forms, and clarifies the tool's distinguishing behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that 'graph' is a graph6 string or registry name. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific predicate ('is the graph a brick') and immediately defines the term as '3-connected and bicritical.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling is_bicritical by noting that the two conditions are reported separately.

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 when the tool is useful: to check the brick property and to learn which condition fails on a negative answer. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer is_bicritical, has_cyclic_edge_cut, or other sibling tools.

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