better-bear

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies this is a one-time setup operation, mentions the creation of directory structure and config, and references follow-up actions (tagging notes, using bear_context_sync). Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) already indicate it's a non-destructive, idempotent write operation, but the description enhances this with practical workflow details without contradiction.

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 main purpose, followed by setup instructions and usage notes in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the output and config, and the third covers prerequisites and alternatives, with zero wasted words.

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 setup operation with parameters), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and schema fully describes inputs, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's role in a workflow and references other tools, but lacks details on output or error handling, which is a minor gap as 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?

The description does not mention any parameters directly, but the input schema has 100% description coverage, providing full details on dir, tag_prefix, and use_frontmatter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 with specific verbs ('Initialize', 'Creates') and resources ('context library', 'directory structure and config'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning it's a 'One-time operation' and referencing bear_context_sync for ongoing use, unlike other context-related tools like bear_context_sync or bear_context_add.

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: 'One-time operation' for initial setup, and when not to use it: after setup, use bear_context_sync instead. It also mentions prerequisites like tagging notes with #context, offering clear alternatives and context for usage.

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