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 valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies the ordering ('reverse chronological order'), explains the git-like syntax for commit ranges ('like git log since..until'), and clarifies the default behavior for 'until' (default branch HEAD). This enhances the agent's understanding without contradicting 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?

The description is highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by two focused sentences explaining key parameters. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently covers essential usage notes.

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 (7 parameters, 2 required), the description is complete enough. With annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint), 100% schema description coverage detailing all parameters, and an output schema present (per context signals), the description effectively supplements by explaining ordering, commit range syntax, and filtering—filling gaps without redundancy. It's appropriately scoped for a read-only list operation.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Filter commits affecting this file path' for 'path'). The description adds some semantic context by explaining how 'since/until' and 'path' are used, but it doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's already documented in the schema. This meets the baseline for 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: 'Get commits for a repository' with the specific action 'Lists commits in reverse chronological order'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bitbucket_get_branches or bitbucket_get_tags by focusing on commit retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from bitbucket_code_search which might also involve commits, leaving room for slight ambiguity.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'since/until' for commit ranges and 'path' for file-specific filtering, suggesting when these parameters are useful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bitbucket_get_pull_request_changes or bitbucket_code_search, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but not comparative.

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