better-bear

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying the scope ('Bear notes library') and listing the exact statistics returned (e.g., total notes, words, tags, pinned/archived/trashed counts, dates, top tags). This clarifies what data is included beyond the safety profile covered by 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 a single, dense sentence that efficiently lists all key statistics without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific metrics, making every part of the sentence earn its place. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 0 parameters, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint), and no output schema, the description provides strong context by detailing the statistics returned. It covers the tool's purpose and output scope well, though it could slightly improve by mentioning data freshness or limitations (e.g., real-time vs. cached).

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 focuses on output semantics by detailing the statistics returned (e.g., total notes, words, tags), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It adds meaningful information about what the tool provides.

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 statistics') and resource ('Bear notes library'), listing concrete metrics like total notes, words, tags, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like bear_list_notes (which lists notes) or bear_get_todos (which focuses on TODOs) by emphasizing aggregated statistical data rather than individual note 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 obtaining library-wide statistics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bear_list_notes for detailed note listings or bear_context_status for sync status). It provides context for retrieving summary metrics but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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