mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that returns include 'all activities (comments, approvals, status changes)' and details about 'inline code comments with file path and line information'. This clarifies the scope and format of returned data, which annotations don't cover. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying second sentence that adds essential details without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place by providing distinct information, and there's no wasted verbiage. It's appropriately sized for the 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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers what the tool returns and its scope, which complements the structured data well. However, it lacks guidance on usage versus siblings, leaving a minor gap in context.

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 itself. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, usage examples, or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 'comments and activity for a pull request', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' or 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_changes' by focusing specifically on comments and activity. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'bitbucket_post_pull_request_comment' (which creates comments), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' (which might include comments) or 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_diff' (which could show inline comments), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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