mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the dual behavior (listing vs. content retrieval based on path type) and mentions pagination via 'start' and 'limit' parameters. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which would enrich transparency further.

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 in the first sentence, followed by specific behaviors and usage notes in two additional sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value: the first defines the tool, the second explains the path-based logic, and the third clarifies the 'at' parameter. No wasted words or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, dual behavior), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the tool's purpose, basic usage, and key parameters. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling alternatives or edge cases (e.g., handling large repositories), slightly reducing completeness.

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 all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'path' can be empty for root and that 'at' defaults to the default branch. This provides some context but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already offers, aligning with the baseline score 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('browse', 'lists', 'returns') and resources ('file tree of a repository', 'files and directories', 'content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bitbucket_get_file_content' by handling both directory listings and file content retrieval in one tool, and from 'bitbucket_list_files' by offering path-based browsing rather than just listing all files.

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 ('browse the file tree', 'lists files and directories at the given path', 'if path points to a file, returns its content instead'). It mentions the 'at' parameter for branch/commit specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as preferring 'bitbucket_get_file_content' for direct file access without browsing.

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