better-bear

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying the filtering logic (notes with no tags) and implying a list operation, but does not provide additional behavioral details like pagination, sorting, or error handling beyond what annotations cover.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only operation with annotations), the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the return format (e.g., note objects, IDs), leaving a minor gap in context for the agent.

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%, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra semantic value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Bear notes') with a specific filter condition ('that have no tags assigned'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'bear_list_notes' or 'bear_search' by specifying the untagged filter.

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 context (finding untagged notes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear_list_notes' or 'bear_search'. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion guidance for sibling tools.

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