bear-notes-mcp

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent operations, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that OCR text from images/PDFs is included with clear labeling, and notes that multiple matching titles return a list for disambiguation. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradictions.

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 key behavioral details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part 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 (read-only with two parameters) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors like OCR inclusion. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail return values (e.g., format of the disambiguation list), leaving a minor gap.

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 the parameters (id and title). The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'direct title lookup' and 'alternative to searching first', but doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers, 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 verb ('Read') and resource ('full text content of a Bear note'), specifying it retrieves text including OCR content from attachments. It distinguishes from siblings like bear-search-notes by emphasizing direct lookup via ID or title rather than search-based retrieval.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool ('direct title lookup as an alternative to searching first') and references a sibling alternative (bear-search-notes), giving clear guidance on usage context and alternatives.

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