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 the return format (note title, tags, counts) and the criteria (incomplete markdown checkboxes), but doesn't disclose additional traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by output details. Every sentence adds essential information (criteria and return format) without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (one parameter, read-only), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, criteria, and output format, but could improve by mentioning when to use versus siblings or noting any limitations (e.g., default behavior without the limit parameter).

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% for the single parameter 'limit', which is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as typical use cases for the limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('List Bear notes that have incomplete TODO items'), the resource (Bear notes with TODO items), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'bear_get_todos' (which might fetch todos differently) and 'bear_list_notes' (which lists all notes without TODO filtering). It specifies the exact criteria (incomplete markdown checkboxes) and output format.

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 by stating it lists notes with incomplete TODO items, suggesting it's for tracking pending tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like 'bear_get_todos' or 'bear_search', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., notes without TODO items).

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