better-bear

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies content is written to the external/ directory with YAML front matter, uses stdin for input, and requires a filename. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file overwriting or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states purpose and output format, the second specifies input method and use cases. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (write operation with 5 parameters), good annotations, and no output schema, the description provides solid context about what the tool does and how to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error behavior, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, mentioning that content is passed via stdin and filename must be provided, but doesn't explain the relationships between parameters like how group/source/summary map to YAML front matter.

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 ('Import external content into the context library') and resource ('external/ directory with YAML front matter'). It distinguishes from siblings like bear_context_add or bear_context_ingest by specifying it's for non-Bear content and uses stdin with a filename requirement.

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 when to use this tool ('to add non-Bear content like Jira tickets, Slack threads, API docs, or any markdown'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for external content import.

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