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 authentication ('authenticated user has access to') and filtering capabilities, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by start/limit parameters) or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this provides adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance about filtering. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 list operation with full parameter documentation in the schema and an output schema available, the description provides adequate context. It covers authentication scope and filtering intent, though it could better differentiate from sibling tools. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 input schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description mentions 'name' and 'permission' filtering but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Get a list') and resource ('Bitbucket projects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_project' (singular) or 'bitbucket_get_repositories', which might cause confusion about when to use each.

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 some usage context by mentioning it returns 'projects the authenticated user has access to' and suggests using parameters for filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'bitbucket_get_project' (singular) or 'bitbucket_get_repositories', leaving the agent to infer based on naming alone.

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