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. The description adds valuable context beyond this by disclosing that locked notes include 'locked: true' in the response and explaining the effect of the 'raw' option on output format. It does not contradict annotations, and the added details enhance transparency about response structure and optional 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and return values, and the second explains the 'raw' option and locked note behavior. Every sentence adds essential information without waste, making it front-loaded and concise.

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 moderate complexity (retrieval with optional formatting), rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits like locked notes and raw output. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error handling or note existence checks, but overall it provides sufficient context for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'id' and 'raw' parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning the 'raw' option's effect ('to get just the markdown without metadata'), but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the primary burden.

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 a single Bear note's full content and metadata by ID'), identifies the resource ('Bear note'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it retrieves a single note by ID rather than listing or searching notes. It explicitly mentions what is returned ('note title, tags, full markdown text, and dates'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage by specifying it's for retrieving a single note by ID and mentions the 'raw' option for markdown-only output. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear_list_notes' or 'bear_search', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some guidance gaps.

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