bricks_get_page_css

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the meta key storage but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, return value format (string or empty?), error behavior if post doesn't exist, or authentication requirements.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for separate facets).

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 simple getter with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the meta key but lacks details about return behavior, defaults, or edge cases. Given the complexity, it could be more complete.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, not even reinforcing parameter roles or constraints.

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 retrieves custom CSS for a page, with a specific storage location. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling `bricks_set_page_css`, though the verb 'get' implies opposite intent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., `bricks_get_page_elements` for element tree, or `bricks_set_page_css` for writing. No context on prerequisites or typical workflows.

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