better-bear

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that it 'Triggers a sync after tagging,' which is a side effect not captured in the structured data. It does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by optional details and behavioral side effect. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage, and a key behavioral trait (sync trigger). However, it lacks details on error conditions or the sync outcome, which could be helpful for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and subtag). The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning the subtag example ('e.g., subtag 'jira' → #context/jira'), but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Add a Bear note to the context library') and resource ('Bear note'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear_add_tag (generic tagging) or bear_context_remove (removal). It specifies the exact tagging mechanism (#context) and the optional subtag feature.

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 provides clear context for usage ('by tagging it with #context') and mentions the optional subtag for grouping, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bear_add_tag or bear_context_ingest, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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