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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by specifying what data is retrieved (e.g., health metrics, warnings like stale cache) and the scope (library-wide stats), which goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about the tool's behavior and output content.

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, dense sentence that efficiently lists all key metrics and warnings without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific details, making every part of the sentence contribute directly 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 tool's complexity (retrieving multiple stats and warnings) and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job of outlining what information is returned. However, it could be more complete by specifying the format of the output (e.g., structured data, summary vs. detailed breakdown) or any limitations (e.g., data freshness).

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output, which aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'context library health and stats', listing specific metrics like note count, external file count, and warnings. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like bear_list_notes or bear_note_stats by focusing on overall library status rather than individual notes or specific operations.

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 usage for monitoring library health and stats, providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bear_context_sync or bear_context_fetch, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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