better-bear

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

While annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, the description adds valuable behavioral context about what gets returned ('matching snippets with filenames and origin labels') and the search scope ('entire context library'), which goes beyond the basic safety profile provided by 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 functionality in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it highly efficient for an AI agent 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?

For a search tool with comprehensive annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides excellent context about scope and use cases. The only minor gap is the lack of output schema, but the description does specify what gets returned ('matching snippets with filenames and origin labels'), which helps compensate.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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 ('Full-text search') and target resources ('entire context library (Bear notes + external files + inbox)'), distinguishing it from simpler search tools like 'bear_search' by emphasizing comprehensive coverage across multiple data sources.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the index alone isn't enough to find the right file'), creating a clear distinction from potential alternatives like 'bear_context_index' or 'bear_search' that might rely on indexed data rather than full-text scanning.

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