better-bear

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool removes the original external file (destructive operation not indicated in annotations), tags notes with #context + optional subtag, and creates permanent notes. While annotations cover read/write and idempotency, the description provides important implementation details about file handling and tagging behavior.

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 functionality in the first sentence, followed by implementation details and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (file ingestion with tagging and deletion), the description provides good context about the workflow and behavioral outcomes. While there's no output schema, the description adequately explains what happens (note creation, tagging, file removal). It could slightly improve by mentioning the note location or any limitations.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, though it contextually mentions the tagging behavior related to the 'subtag' parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Push an external file to Bear as a new note'), the resource involved ('external file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it creates a note from file content with tagging and file removal. It explicitly differentiates from tools like bear_create_note by focusing on external file ingestion.

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 ('Use when external content has matured enough to become a permanent Bear note') and implies alternatives by contrasting with siblings like bear_context_add or bear_create_note that don't remove the original file. It clearly defines the specific use case context.

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