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 'push_to_bear' creates a Bear note tagged #context and deletes the inbox file, and that all actions regenerate the index. Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent, but the description clarifies the deletion behavior and index regeneration, enhancing transparency 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 core purpose, followed by a concise breakdown of the three actions and their effects, including the index regeneration note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a multi-action tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers the purpose, actions, and behavioral outcomes like deletion and index regeneration. However, it lacks details on error handling or what 'regenerate the index' entails, which could be useful for full context. Annotations provide safety hints, but more behavioral nuance might be needed.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal extra semantics by mentioning optional metadata for 'keep' and subtag usage for 'push_to_bear', but this mostly reiterates schema details. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('triage') and resource ('a file in the inbox'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on inbox file processing with three distinct actions. It explicitly mentions moving to external/, creating Bear notes, or deleting files, which differentiates it from other context tools like bear_context_fetch or bear_context_search.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to triage inbox files) and outlines the three specific actions with their purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to use bear_context_ingest or bear_context_import instead for similar file handling.

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