better-bear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what gets returned (filename, size, content preview, YAML front matter) and explicitly states 'Does NOT modify anything,' reinforcing the read-only nature. No contradiction with 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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description provides excellent context about what gets scanned, what information is returned, and how it differs from sibling tools. The only minor gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates by detailing the return format.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately explains that no parameters are needed (implied by 'Scan the inbox/ directory' without parameter mentions), adding context about the scanning scope.

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 ('Scan the inbox/ directory and list all untriaged files') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'use bear_context_triage to act on files.' It provides verb+resource+scope with clear differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('list all untriaged files') and when not to use it ('Does NOT modify anything'), while providing a clear alternative ('use bear_context_triage to act on files'). This gives complete guidance on tool selection.

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