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, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds useful context about the specific stats returned (e.g., warnings like stale cache), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as performance characteristics or error handling. 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get context library health and stats') followed by a detailed but concise list of metrics. Every element adds value without waste, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (read-only stats retrieval), annotations cover safety, and there are 0 parameters, the description is largely complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format (e.g., structure of breakdowns), but the listed metrics provide good coverage for the intended use.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 ('Get') and resource ('context library health and stats'), listing detailed metrics like note counts, tokens, and warnings. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bear_health_check' or 'bear_note_stats' by focusing on the context library's comprehensive status rather than general health or individual note statistics.

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 implies usage for monitoring context library status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear_health_check' or 'bear_note_stats'. It provides clear context (health and stats) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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