BearQ: Expand Application Model

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

The description states the tool can 'update' pages and elements, but annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which indicates the tool does not modify state. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, the description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations (e.g., no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'exploration' entails). The contradiction severely undermines transparency.

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 relatively short but includes a redundant parameter listing (already present in the schema). The 'Toolset: Tasks' line may be metadata but adds little. Overall, it is fairly concise, though the parameter listing could be omitted to improve efficiency.

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 moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate except for the annotation contradiction. Without output schema, the agent might need to know what the tool returns (e.g., a list of pages/elements). The description does not cover this. The contradiction also reduces completeness.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'functionalArea'. The description repeats the schema's note about omitting to explore the entire application. It adds the word 'scope' but offers no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Explores the live application to discover or update its pages and elements in BearQ's application model.' It specifies the verb 'explores', the resource 'live application', and the outcome 'discover or update pages and elements'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like bearq_refine_test_cases or bearq_run_regression_tests, which are about test manipulation rather than application model expansion.

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 exploring the application model, optionally scoped to a functional area. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bearq_refine_all_draft_tests for refining tests). There is no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The usage is implied but not clarified.

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