mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it specifies the action is to 'Get details' but doesn't elaborate on what details are returned, error conditions, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets the baseline for adding some value.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific Bitbucket project') and includes essential qualification ('by its key'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of both annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could be improved by mentioning sibling differentiation or error handling, but it adequately covers the basics for this straightforward retrieval tool.

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 the parameter 'project_key' fully documented in the schema as 'The project key (e.g. 'PROJ').' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 details') and resource ('of a specific Bitbucket project by its key'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_projects' (plural) which likely lists multiple projects. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 specifying 'by its key,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving details when you know the exact project identifier. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'bitbucket_get_projects' or 'bitbucket_get_repository,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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