mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about returning 'full file content as text' and the default behavior for the 'at' parameter, which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, encoding issues, or error conditions for non-existent files.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by key behavioral details. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the operation, the second clarifies return format and parameter usage. Zero 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 this is a read-only operation with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint=true), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides exactly what's needed. It covers purpose, return format, and key parameter guidance without duplicating structured data. Perfectly complete for this tool's complexity level.

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 description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by clarifying the 'at' parameter's purpose ('to fetch from a specific branch, tag, or commit hash') and default behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Get the raw content of a file') and resource ('from a repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like bitbucket_browse (directory browsing) or bitbucket_list_files (listing files without content). The verb 'Get' combined with 'raw content' precisely defines the operation.

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 ('to fetch from a specific branch, tag, or commit hash'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It distinguishes from bitbucket_list_files by focusing on content retrieval rather than listing, but lacks explicit exclusions or named sibling comparisons.

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