mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it 'Returns branches with their latest commit hash' and mentions substring matching for filtering. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior details (though pagination parameters are in the schema).

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 additional details in a second sentence. It's efficiently structured with zero waste—every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (6 parameters, read-only operation), annotations cover safety, schema provides full parameter documentation, and an output schema exists (though not shown here). The description adequately complements this by stating the return format and filtering capability. It could be more complete by mentioning pagination or ordering behavior, but the structured data reduces the burden.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filter_text' for searching branches by name, but doesn't provide additional semantics for other parameters like 'order_by' or pagination details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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: 'List branches in a repository' with the specific action 'list' and resource 'branches'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bitbucket_get_tags' or 'bitbucket_get_commits' by focusing on branches, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'bitbucket_get_repositories' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'filter_text' for searching branches by name, which suggests when to use this tool for filtered vs. unfiltered listing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'bitbucket_browse' or 'bitbucket_list_files', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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