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 the tool returns 'groups of notes sharing the same title with their IDs and modification dates,' which clarifies the output format. Annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the description doesn't need to repeat those traits, but it enhances understanding of the tool's 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by output details and usage context in two additional sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, output format, and usage context. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., group format), but it's adequate for the tool's scope.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter details, so it meets expectations without extra effort.

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 ('Find notes with duplicate titles') and resource ('notes'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'bear_list_notes' or 'bear_search' by focusing on duplicate detection rather than general listing or searching. It explicitly mentions the purpose for 'cleaning up after imports or sync conflicts,' which adds clarity to its unique function.

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 ('Useful for cleaning up after imports or sync conflicts'), indicating it's intended for maintenance tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'bear_list_notes' for general listing), which prevents a perfect score.

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