mcp-bitbucket-dc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying the tool's purpose for 'potential pull requests' and explaining it checks 'merge checks or default reviewer rules'. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by clarifying usage context and differentiating from sibling tools, with no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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, rich annotations (readOnlyHint), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adequately explains the tool's role in the workflow without needing to detail return values or parameters, which are covered elsewhere.

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 all parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the tool uses branch refs for source and target. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 required reviewers') and resource ('for a potential pull request between two branches'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'bitbucket_create_pull_request' or 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' by focusing on pre-PR reviewer discovery rather than PR creation or retrieval.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this before creating a PR') and why ('to discover mandatory reviewers configured via merge checks or default reviewer rules'). It provides clear context for usage relative to the sibling 'bitbucket_create_pull_request', indicating this is a preparatory step.

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