better-bear

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains that the index includes 'cache freshness metadata' and serves as a preliminary step to optimize file fetching. This enhances understanding of the tool's role in the workflow without contradicting 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 critical usage advice. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains its strategic use, and the third provides metadata details. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 complexity (a structured index with metadata) and the absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context (e.g., cache freshness). However, it does not detail the exact structure or format of the returned index, which could be a minor gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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 input schema has no parameters (parameter count: 0), so there is no need for parameter documentation. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage without redundant parameter details, aligning with the baseline score of 4 for zero parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get the context library index — a structured table of contents of all files (Bear notes, external files, inbox).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('context library index'), and scope ('all files'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear_context_fetch (which fetches specific files) and bear_context_search (which searches content).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Read this FIRST before answering questions from context. Use it to identify which files to fetch, rather than loading everything.' It contrasts with alternatives by implying that other tools (e.g., bear_context_fetch) should be used after this one for specific file retrieval, and it includes a 'when-not' aspect by advising against loading everything directly.

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