mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a read operation ('Get'). The description adds value by specifying the output format ('unified diff showing additions and deletions'), which annotations don't cover. However, it lacks context on rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving behavioral gaps despite the annotations.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the output format. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, with every sentence earning its place by adding clarity.

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 (7 parameters, 4 required), high schema coverage (100%), annotations (readOnlyHint), and output schema (true), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and output format but lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., error handling), which slightly reduces completeness for an agent's needs.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'path' is for file selection and 'context_lines' relates to diff output. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, meeting 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 specific action ('Get the text diff') and resource ('for a specific file in a pull request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request_changes' (which likely lists changed files) or 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' (which returns PR metadata). The second sentence reinforces the output format, making the purpose unambiguous.

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_changes' (for file lists) or 'bitbucket_get_file_content' (for file contents without diffs), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., requires an existing PR). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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