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 useful context about what types of changes are shown (added, modified, deleted, renamed), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by start/limit parameters) or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place - no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly sized for this tool's complexity.

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 safety (readOnlyHint), schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. It explains what information is returned (file changes with types), though doesn't mention the paginated nature of results.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it 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 the list of files changed in a pull request' and specifies the types of changes (added, modified, deleted, renamed). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_diff' (which might show diff content) and 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' (which might show PR metadata), but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_diff' or 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_comments'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate compared to sibling tools.

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