BearQ: Expand Application Model

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

The description says the tool will 'discover or update' pages and elements, implying a state change, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction unless 'update' refers only to an internal cache, which the description does not clarify.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise parameter note. The 'Toolset: Tasks' line adds marginal context but does not make the description bloated.

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?

The description does not mention return values, whether the tool starts an asynchronous task, or how to monitor progress—especially relevant given the 'Toolset: Tasks' hint and sibling task-status tools. The read/update ambiguity also leaves an important side-effect question unresolved.

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 coverage is 100%; the schema already documents that functionalArea is an optional ID or name and that omitting it explores the entire application. The description restates this without adding meaningful detail beyond the 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 identifies a specific action and resource: exploring the live application to discover or update pages and elements in BearQ's application model. This is clearly distinct from the test-execution and test-management siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bearq_run_test_cases or bearq_get_task. The only usage hint is parameter-scoping ('Omit to explore the entire application'), which does not help an agent choose this tool over others.

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