bear-notes-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that Bear fetches and converts the page to markdown, and that note creation happens in the background without UI disruption. This clarifies the tool's execution behavior and side effects.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and mechanism, the second adds important behavioral context about background operation. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains what the tool does, how it works (fetching/conversion), and operational behavior (background execution). The main gap is lack of output details, but with no output schema, this isn't critical.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (url and tags). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as URL validation rules or tag formatting examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Save a web page as a Bear note'), resource ('web page'), and mechanism ('Bear fetches the page and converts it to markdown'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on URL-based note creation rather than file/text addition or other 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Save a web page as a Bear note') and mentions it operates 'in the background without bringing Bear to the foreground,' which is useful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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