better-bear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that locked notes are private/encrypted and their body content is not searchable, and provides troubleshooting advice ('if a search returns no results, check whether the relevant note is locked'). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but adds practical implementation details.

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 three sentences: first states purpose and return format, second explains locked notes limitation, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded. No wasted words or unnecessary details.

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 read-only list tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It explains the tool's behavior regarding locked notes, distinguishes it from sibling tools, and provides practical usage guidance. The lack of output schema is compensated by describing the return format in the description.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it mentions 'optional tag filtering' but doesn't elaborate on tag syntax or matching behavior). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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'), specifies optional tag filtering, and distinguishes it from siblings like bear_search (which searches content) and bear_get_note (which reads full content). It explicitly mentions what it returns (array of notes with specific fields).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it mentions using bear_get_note to read full content of a specific note, and implicitly distinguishes from bear_search by noting that locked notes' body content is not searchable. It also clarifies the tool's scope (list with filtering vs. content search).

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