better-bear

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the original file is removed (destructive action on the external file, though annotations only cover Bear-side effects), and it describes tagging behavior (#context + optional subtag). Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive (likely referring to Bear data), and idempotent, which the description doesn't contradict but supplements with practical details.

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?

It's front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by key behavioral details and usage guidance in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it 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?

For a tool with no output schema, good annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage well, but could slightly improve by hinting at the output (e.g., note creation confirmation) or error cases, though not strictly necessary given the context.

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, the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'external/' context for filename and default title behavior, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 ('push an external file to Bear as a new note'), identifies the resource ('external file'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it creates notes from external files with #context tagging, unlike tools like bear_list_notes or bear_get_todos that query existing 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when external content has matured enough to become a permanent Bear note') and implies alternatives by mentioning it removes the original file, suggesting it's for finalizing content rather than temporary storage like bear_context_fetch or bear_context_sync might handle.

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