bear-notes-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about the tool's purpose ('organizing and categorizing'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or response format. With annotations providing core safety info, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a brief usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (one optional parameter), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the tool's purpose and usage context. However, it could benefit from mentioning the return format or any limitations, though annotations cover key behavioral aspects.

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 parameter 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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') and resource ('in your Bear library') with a precise condition ('that have no tags'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bear-search-notes' by focusing on untagged notes only, not general search.

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 organizing and categorizing notes'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'bear-search-notes' for tagged notes). The guidance is helpful but lacks exclusions.

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