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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context that the tool reports current mode and unlock instructions, which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations and clarifies the tool is informational.

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?

Description is two sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple task, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose and when to use it. Could mention what specifically 'reporting mode' outputs, but it is adequate.

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?

Tool has no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but with zero parameters this is not needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool reports the current mood and how to unlock additional capabilities. Verb 'Report' and resource 'Bear Notes MCP server mode' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like bear-search-notes or bear-list-tags.

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?

Description provides explicit scenarios for when to call: when user asks what can be done with Bear notes, when write operations seem unavailable, or when user wants to enable note creation/editing/tag management. This clarity helps the agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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

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.

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: counts exclude trashed/archived notes and tags with zero active notes. No 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?

Three sentences that are well-structured and front-loaded. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description is complete. It explains the output format, what's included/excluded, and the tool's utility.

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 zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (hierarchical tree, note counts), which is helpful given no output schema.

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 lists all tags as a hierarchical tree with note counts, and explicitly excludes trashed/archived notes and tags with zero active notes. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like bear-find-untagged-notes.

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 says it is useful for understanding tag structure and finding tags for untagged notes, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though siblings provide context.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), description discloses that OCR text from images/PDFs is included and clearly labeled. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, no waste. Front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and important behavioral detail (OCR inclusion). 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 has 100% coverage, and description adds extra meaning: title is case-insensitive, and if multiple notes share the same title, returns a list for disambiguation. This is valuable beyond the schema.

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 it reads full text content of a Bear note by ID or title. Explicitly mentions direct title lookup as alternative to searching, and includes OCR text from images/PDFs. Distinguishes from sibling tools like bear-search-notes.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use direct title lookup versus searching first. Does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention siblings for comparison, but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds context: notes are ranked by relevance, returns snippets, and excludes trashed/archived notes. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Structured in a logical flow: purpose, return format, usage tips, then filter details. Front-loaded with the core function. All sentences add value, though slightly verbose for a summary.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers search scope, result format, filter options, and exclusions (trashed/archived). Provides sufficient context for an agent to use effectively.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds extra context: explains term matching with hyphenated identifiers, that tag strips leading #, and relative date formats. That adds value beyond the schema.

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 searches Bear notes for words or phrases, covering titles, body, and OCR content. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., bear-list-tags, bear-open-note) by focusing on search and 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?

Provides explicit guidance on best practices (phrase or several words for best results) and explains how to combine filters or use them independently. Notes that trashed/archived notes are excluded, but does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings.

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