better-bear

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains what qualifies for syncing ('tag removed, trashed, etc.'), specifies directory scope ('Only touches the bear/ directory'), and describes the multi-step process (add, update, remove, regenerate index). Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, but the description enriches this with operational details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: first explains the core operation, second specifies scope constraints, third provides usage triggers. There's no wasted verbiage, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (syncing with qualification logic), rich annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and behavioral nuances. A 5 would require explaining return values or error cases, which isn't expected without an 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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'force', the schema already fully documents it. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No compensation is needed given the high 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('sync', 'adds', 'updates', 'removes', 'regenerates') and resources ('Bear notes', 'local context library', 'bear/ directory'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by specifying what directories are untouched (external/, inbox/) and contrasting with tools like bear_sync or bear_context_fetch.

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 explicit usage guidelines by stating 'Call this when the user asks to sync, refresh, or update their context.' This gives clear when-to-use criteria and implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like bear_context_fetch (which might fetch without syncing) or bear_sync (which might not handle context library updates).

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