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 value by specifying what details are included ('description and reviewers'), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, though the output schema may cover some of this.

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 full details of a specific pull request') and adds specific value ('including description and reviewers'). There's zero waste 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 that annotations cover the read-only nature, schema coverage is 100%, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is reasonably complete. It adds useful context about what details are retrieved. However, it could be more comprehensive by clarifying its scope relative to sibling tools.

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 all parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific pull request'), specifying what information is retrieved ('including description and reviewers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bitbucket_get_pull_requests' (plural) by focusing on a single PR, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other PR-related tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_changes' or 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_comments'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'bitbucket_get_pull_requests' (for listing multiple PRs) or other PR-detail tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_changes' (for file changes). No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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