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 value by specifying what the health check reports (e.g., duplicate titles, sync conflicts), which helps the agent understand the scope of the diagnostic output beyond the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose and usage, with no wasted words. Every part of the description adds essential information about what the tool does and when to use it.

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 complexity (diagnostic with multiple checks), annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists. The description adequately explains the types of issues reported, though it could briefly mention output format for better completeness.

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 high. The description reinforces that no inputs are needed by not mentioning any, which aligns perfectly with the empty schema.

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 ('Run a health check') and resource ('Bear notes library'), with specific details about what it reports (duplicate titles, empty notes, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like bear_find_duplicates and bear_find_untagged by covering multiple issues comprehensively.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to identify cleanup opportunities or diagnose sync issues.' This provides clear context for usage without needing to specify exclusions, as it's a diagnostic tool distinct from action-oriented siblings.

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