better-bear

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation (mutation with potential side effects). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that front matter is stored as a collapsed metadata block and that the tool returns the new note's ID, which helps the agent understand the output format and 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key features without unnecessary words. Every element (creation, components, front matter behavior, return value) earns its place.

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 creation tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete: it covers the action, key inputs, special behavior (front matter storage), and output (note ID). However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on error cases or the ID format.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by listing the parameters (title, body, tags, front matter) and noting that front matter uses YAML, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('Create a new Bear note') and distinguishes it from siblings like bear_edit_note or bear_trash_note by focusing on creation. It lists the key components (title, body, tags, front matter) that differentiate it from simpler creation tools.

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 creating notes with specific features like YAML front matter, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like bear_edit_note for updates or bear_context_push_to_bear for context-related operations. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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