Find Untagged Notes

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating that trashed and archived notes are excluded, which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions and the added behavioral detail is clear.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences. The first sentence immediately communicates the action, the second adds context, and the third provides an important scope exclusion. No superfluous information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, use case, and exclusion of trashed/archived notes. It does not mention return format or the limit parameter, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema covering limit, it is mostly complete. A minor gap is the lack of output format hints.

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 100% schema coverage for the single parameter 'limit', the schema already documents its type, range, and default. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning for the parameter, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool finds notes without tags in Bear library, explicitly excluding trashed and archived notes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bear-search-notes by focusing on untagged notes, providing a specific verb-resource-scope.

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 mentions 'useful for organizing and categorizing notes' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bear-search-notes or bear-list-tags. No when-not-to-use or direct comparisons are given.

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