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 context by listing specific statistics returned (e.g., total notes, words, tags, pinned/archived/trashed counts, dates, top tags), which helps the agent understand the output format and scope beyond the 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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently lists all key statistics without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Get statistics about the Bear notes library') and follows with specific examples, making every part of the sentence informative and well-structured.

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 has 0 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly explains what the tool does and what data it returns. However, it does not mention potential limitations like data freshness or performance implications, which could be relevant for a statistics tool.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics by detailing what statistics are returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema, adding meaningful context beyond the empty input 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 explicitly states the verb 'Get statistics' and specifies the resource 'Bear notes library', clearly indicating it retrieves aggregated data rather than individual notes. It distinguishes from siblings like bear_list_notes (lists notes) or bear_get_tags (gets tags) by focusing on comprehensive library-wide metrics.

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 for obtaining overall library metrics, which suggests it should be used when needing summary statistics rather than detailed note lists or tag management. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as bear_list_notes for note details or bear_get_tags for tag lists.

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