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 that syncs are normally incremental, can be forced to full, and that read operations often auto-sync. Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, but the description enriches this with practical usage insights without contradiction.

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, followed by usage details and alternatives in three efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-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 moderate complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on error handling or sync outcomes, leaving minor gaps in full context.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the 'full' parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'full' in context, but doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline for 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 specific action ('Trigger a sync of Bear notes from iCloud') and resource ('Bear notes'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'bear_context_sync' by focusing on iCloud sync rather than context sync. It provides precise scope and mechanism.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Most read operations auto-sync... so manual sync is rarely needed') and when to use an alternative ('Use 'full' to force a complete re-sync' vs. normal incremental sync). This gives clear context and exclusions.

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