Open Bear Note

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, description adds that it includes OCR text from images/PDFs with clear labeling, which is valuable behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with core action, then additional details. No redundancy.

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 read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately hints at return format (full text + OCR labeling), making it complete.

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 already describes parameters well (100% coverage), but description adds semantics about disambiguation when multiple notes share title, exceeding schema info.

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?

Clearly states 'Read the full text content of a Bear note by its ID or title', specifying verb, resource, and distinguishing from siblings like search tools that return metadata only.

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?

Mentions direct title lookup as an alternative to searching, providing clear context. Could be improved by explicitly distinguishing from bear-search-notes, but the sibling list makes it clear.

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