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, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('groups of notes sharing the same title with their IDs and modification dates') and the practical use case, which enhances context without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by return details and a use case, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value: action, output, and context.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., format of 'groups'), slightly limiting completeness.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to compensate for missing param info, but it implicitly confirms no parameters are required by not mentioning any, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it adds no param semantics but doesn't detract.

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 ('Find notes with duplicate titles') and resource ('notes'), distinguishing it from siblings like bear_list_notes or bear_note_stats by focusing on duplicate detection rather than general listing or statistics. It explicitly mentions the use case for 'cleaning up after imports or sync conflicts,' which further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for cleaning up after imports or sync conflicts'), indicating it's for maintenance tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. bear_list_notes for general listing), which prevents a perfect score.

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