bear_note_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond listing returned data. It does not mention any behavioral aspects like performance implications or that no modifications occur (already implied by annotations). The description is correct but adds minimal additional behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence that lists all returned statistics concisely and front-loads the purpose. No wasted words, every term adds value.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description adequately covers the tool's function by enumerating output fields. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 it gets statistics from the Bear notes library and enumerates specific metrics (total notes, words, tags, etc.), making the tool's purpose very specific. Distinct from sibling tools like bear_get_note or bear_list_notes, which deal with individual notes or lists, not aggregate stats.

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 the tool is for obtaining aggregate statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., use this for a library overview, use bear_list_notes for a list of note titles). The context makes it somewhat clear, but formal guidance is missing.

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