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 value by mentioning the return format (text, completion status, index) and hinting at integration with bear_toggle_todo, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

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 states the action and return format, and the second provides a practical usage tip for the index. It is front-loaded with essential information and efficiently structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, return format, and a usage tip. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid note ID) or performance aspects, which could be helpful for an agent.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' fully documented in the schema as 'Note ID (uniqueIdentifier)'. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('Get all TODO items') and resource ('from a specific Bear note'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bear_list_notes (which lists notes) or bear_note_stats (which provides statistics). It explicitly mentions the return format, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by specifying it retrieves TODO items from a specific note, implying it should be used when you have a note ID and need its TODO items. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as bear_context_search for broader searches.

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