better-bear

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that syncs are normally incremental and can be forced to full, and notes that manual sync is rarely needed due to auto-sync on stale cache. This clarifies operational behavior without contradicting the annotations (which indicate non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage details and alternatives in three efficient sentences. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value without redundancy, making it highly concise 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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), rich annotations, and high schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter context effectively, though it could slightly enhance completeness by mentioning idempotency or error handling, but this is minor.

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 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'full', the description adds meaning by explaining the default behavior ('Normally an incremental sync') and the effect of the parameter ('Use 'full' to force a complete re-sync'), providing practical context beyond the schema's technical definition.

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 ('Trigger a sync') and resource ('Bear notes from iCloud'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bear_context_sync' by focusing on iCloud synchronization rather than context management. It precisely defines the tool's function without tautology.

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?

It explicitly provides when to use ('Most read operations auto-sync when the cache is stale, so manual sync is rarely needed') and when to use alternatives ('Use 'full' to force a complete re-sync' vs. default incremental), offering clear guidance on context and exclusions without being misleading.

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