mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond this: it specifies that results are filtered by user access permissions and lists all repositories (implying no additional filtering beyond project and access). However, it does not mention pagination behavior (implied by start/limit parameters) or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate for adding some behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key constraints (project scope and access). Every word contributes essential information with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (list operation with pagination), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, scope, and access constraints, leaving detailed parameter and output specifics to structured fields. No critical gaps exist for this type of read tool.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., project key format, pagination defaults and limits). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how start/limit interact or project key examples. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 repositories', 'Lists all repositories') and resource ('for a Bitbucket project'), distinguishing it from siblings like bitbucket_get_repository (singular) and bitbucket_get_projects (different resource). It specifies scope ('within the specified project') and access constraints ('that the authenticated user has access to'), 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 clear context for when to use this tool: to list repositories in a specific project with user access. It implicitly distinguishes from bitbucket_get_repository (single repo) and bitbucket_get_projects (list projects), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The guidance is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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