better-bear

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds useful context about the search scope ('entire context library') and what's included ('Bear notes + external files + inbox'), but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first explains what the tool does and returns, the second provides clear usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 (search operation with 2 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the search scope and when to use it, but could benefit from mentioning the return format more explicitly (e.g., structure of snippets) since there's no output schema.

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 both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or formatting details for the query. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 performs 'Full-text search across the entire context library' and specifies what it returns ('matching snippets with filenames and origin labels'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'when the index alone isn't enough,' implying this is a more comprehensive search than basic listing tools like bear_list_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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when the index alone isn't enough to find the right file.' This provides clear guidance on its specific use case compared to alternatives, helping the agent choose between this and simpler search or listing tools among its siblings.

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