mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies default behavior (OPEN state, newest first ordering), mentions filtering capabilities, and implies pagination through parameters. It doesn't describe rate limits, authentication needs, or exact return format, but adds meaningful operational context beyond the basic read-only annotation.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides essential behavioral context about defaults and filtering. Every word serves a purpose, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (8 parameters, filtering capabilities), the combination of description, annotations (readOnlyHint), and output schema provides reasonably complete context. The description covers the core behavior and defaults, annotations cover safety, and the output schema handles return values. Some additional context about pagination behavior or result format might be helpful but isn't essential.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions filtering by 'state, direction, and text' and default ordering, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details that aren't already in the parameter descriptions. This 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 'List pull requests for a repository' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' (singular) by indicating this returns multiple pull requests, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list/filter tools like 'bitbucket_get_branches' or 'bitbucket_get_commits' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities and defaults, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' (singular) for specific PR details or 'bitbucket_create_pull_request' for creation. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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