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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the tool adds a file but doesn't describe what happens during the operation (e.g., whether it modifies the note content, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure). For a mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing.

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 complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The agent would need to rely heavily on the input schema alone, which isn't sufficient for understanding the full context of this file addition operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and an enum for 'mode'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Add a file') and target ('to an existing note'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bear_add_text (which adds text rather than files) and bear_create_note (which creates new notes rather than modifying existing ones). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the note must already exist), when not to use it, or suggest alternative tools like bear_add_text for adding text content instead of files. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds text to existing notes, implying mutation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires note permissions, whether changes are reversible, if it affects note metadata, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with 14 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (14 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, return values, error handling, or usage context. For a tool with this many options and no structured support, the description should provide more guidance to be complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 14 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool's general purpose. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Add text to an existing note' clearly states the action (add text) and target resource (existing note), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bear_create_note' (creates new notes) and 'bear_trash_note' (deletes notes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'bear_add_file' also adds content to notes), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating notes), or comparisons to siblings like 'bear_create_note' for new notes or 'bear_add_file' for file attachments. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive a note' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether archiving is reversible, what happens to archived notes, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 'Archive a note' is extremely concise with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's effects, return values, or how to handle parameters like 'id' versus 'search', making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents parameters like 'id', 'search', and 'show_window'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining how 'id' and 'search' interact or what 'show_window' affects. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Archive a note' clearly states the action (archive) and resource (note), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bear_trash_note' or explain what archiving means in this context versus trashing or deleting, making it vague about the specific operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bear_trash_note' or 'bear_delete_tag', nor are there any prerequisites or context for archiving. The description lacks any usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Create a new note' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't address permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what happens when parameters conflict (e.g., both 'text' and 'clipboard' specified). For a mutation tool with 15 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 maximally concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool whose complexity is captured in the detailed input schema.

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?

For a mutation tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or how parameters interact. While the schema documents individual parameters, the description fails to provide the holistic context needed for effective tool use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the basic purpose statement. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new note in Bear'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar siblings like bear_add_text or bear_grab_url, which also create notes through different mechanisms.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like bear_add_text (adds text to existing notes), bear_grab_url (creates notes from URLs), and bear_add_file (adds files to notes), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for different note-creation scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an existing tag' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or affects associated notes. It also omits details like error handling, permissions, or side effects, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete an existing tag'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'delete'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens to notes with the deleted tag, whether deletion is permanent, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent under-informed about risks and outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Tag name to delete' for 'name'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%), as the schema adequately documents parameters without description enhancement.

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 'Delete an existing tag' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (tag), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bear_rename_tag' (modifies) and 'bear_get_tags' (reads), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., tag must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'bear_rename_tag' or 'bear_trash_note'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves locked notes but lacks details on permissions required, whether it lists or opens notes, response format, or error handling. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get locked notes') and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity of retrieving encrypted notes, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'locked' entails (e.g., encryption status), how results are returned, or any limitations. For a tool that likely involves security considerations, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (search and show_window). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a retrieval action, which the schema already supports. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'locked (encrypted) notes', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like bear_search or bear_get_today by specifying it retrieves only encrypted notes. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., bear_get_untagged), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing encrypted notes), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like bear_search (which might also find locked notes). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get all tags') but doesn't describe what 'all tags' entails (e.g., format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond the token parameter). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get all tags' returns (e.g., list format, error handling), and with no behavioral context, it fails to provide enough information for effective use in a complex environment.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'token' fully documented in the schema as 'Bear API token (required)'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra param info.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all tags from Bear'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bear_open_tag' or 'bear_rename_tag', but the action is specific enough to be distinguished by context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used for listing tags versus other tag-related operations like 'bear_delete_tag' or 'bear_rename_tag', nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get today's notes' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication (though the 'token' parameter hints at it), what the return format is, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'today's notes' means (e.g., creation date, modification date), the return format, or how parameters like 'search' interact with the date filter. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.

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 100% description coverage, so all parameters ('search', 'token', 'show_window') are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a date-based filter ('today's'), which isn't detailed in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Get today's notes' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('today's notes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bear_search' or 'bear_get_todo', which also retrieve notes with different filters, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'bear_get_today' over 'bear_search' or 'bear_get_todo', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get todo notes' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns a list, details permissions needed, mentions rate limits, or describes the return format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'todo notes' are, how results are returned, or provide any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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 description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides, as it doesn't mention any parameters. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, since the schema documents 'search' (search term), 'token' (API token), and 'show_window' (show Bear window) adequately, though the description doesn't compensate or enhance this.

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 'Get todo notes' states the basic action (get) and resource (todo notes), which provides a minimal understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'todo notes' are in the Bear context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'bear_search' or 'bear_get_today', making it vague rather than clearly differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'bear_search' (general search), 'bear_get_today' (today's notes), and 'bear_get_untagged' (untagged notes), there's no indication of whether this tool filters by todo status, retrieves all todos, or serves a specific use case, leaving the agent with no usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get untagged notes' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all untagged notes, supports pagination, requires authentication (though the 'token' parameter hints at this), or has any rate limits. The description lacks crucial context about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function without redundancy.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of notes, error handling), how results are structured, or interaction with sibling tools. For a retrieval tool with authentication and display parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters ('search', 'token', 'show_window') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'search' interacts with untagged filtering or what 'show_window' visually does. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get untagged notes' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('untagged notes'), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'bear_search' or 'bear_get_tags', leaving ambiguity about its specific scope within the note retrieval family.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'bear_search' (general search), 'bear_get_tags' (get tags), and 'bear_get_today' (get today's notes), there's no indication of when untagged notes retrieval is preferred over other filtering methods or what prerequisites might exist.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create' (implying a write operation) but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is invalid. It hints at web scraping ('grab content') but doesn't detail potential failures or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Create a note from web page content') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a web scraping and note creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'grab content' entails (e.g., HTML parsing, error handling), the note's format, or return values, leaving the agent with critical unknowns for a mutation operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (url, tags, pin, wait) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying URL-based content extraction, which is already suggested by the tool name. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create a note') and resource ('from web page content'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bear_create_note' or 'bear_add_text', which might also create notes, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear_add_text' (for text content) or 'bear_create_note' (for manual note creation). It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what 'open' means (e.g., opens in Bear app, requires Bear installed, may trigger UI changes), potential side effects, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' entails operationally, how parameters interact (e.g., using both 'id' and 'title'), or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with many optional parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'id' or 'title' can be used to identify notes, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Open') and resource ('a note in Bear'), specifying it can be done by ID or title. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bear_open_tag' or 'bear_search', which also involve opening or accessing Bear content, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to prefer 'bear_open_note' over 'bear_search' for finding notes, or how it relates to 'bear_open_tag' for tag-based navigation. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Open notes') but doesn't clarify what 'open' means (e.g., opens in Bear app, returns note contents, requires Bear to be running), whether it's read-only or modifies state, or any permissions/rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' entails behaviorally, what the output looks like (e.g., list of notes, success status), or how to interpret results. For a tool with 3 parameters and sibling alternatives, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (name, token, show_window). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'name' relates to tags. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Open') and resource ('notes'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like bear_open_note (opens specific notes) by focusing on tag-based filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this opens multiple notes or how they're displayed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bear_search (which can also filter by tags) or bear_open_note (for specific notes). The description implies tag-based filtering but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the action ('rename') but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether the change affects linked notes, error conditions (e.g., if the tag doesn't exist or new_name conflicts), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word ('rename', 'existing', 'tag') contributes essential meaning, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing. This efficiency aids quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and return values, which are critical for safe and effective invocation. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in a tool that modifies data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters (name, new_name, show_window) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints like character limits. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('rename') and resource ('an existing tag'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'bear_delete_tag' and 'bear_get_tags' by focusing on modification rather than deletion or retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what system or application the tag belongs to (Bear notes app), which would make it fully specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear_delete_tag' for removal or 'bear_get_tags' for listing. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the tag must exist) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone. This lack of explicit when/when-not instructions limits its effectiveness.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('search') but doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of notes, note contents, metadata), how results are ordered, whether it's paginated, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication requirements beyond the token parameter. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a search operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with this level of potential complexity, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with all four parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('search') and resource ('notes in Bear'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this search tool from other search-related capabilities that might exist in sibling tools like 'bear_get_today' or 'bear_get_untagged', which could also involve finding notes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve notes (e.g., 'bear_get_today', 'bear_get_untagged', 'bear_get_locked'), there's no indication of when this general search is preferred over those more specific retrieval methods.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Move a note to trash' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects linked data, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like reversibility, error conditions, or response format, which are crucial for safe agent operation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for a destructive operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (id, search, show_window). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'id' and 'search' interact or the implications of 'show_window'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Move') and resource ('a note to trash'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'bear_delete_tag' or 'bear_archive_note' by specifying the trash destination rather than deletion or archiving. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'bear_archive_note' which might be a close alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bear_archive_note' or 'bear_delete_tag', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information, leaving the agent to infer when this operation is appropriate.

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