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 behavioral context: it specifies 'Returns a flat list of all file paths (no directories)' and 'Recursively list all file paths,' clarifying the output format and traversal behavior. It does not mention rate limits or authentication needs, but adds meaningful details beyond 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional context in a second sentence. Both sentences are essential: the first defines the action, and the second clarifies use cases. There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 2 required), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's purpose, output format, and use cases without needing to detail parameters or return values, 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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Recursively list all file paths in a repository or sub-directory.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('file paths'), and scope ('repository or sub-directory'), and distinguishes from siblings like bitbucket_browse (which likely shows directory structure) and bitbucket_code_search (which searches content).

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: 'Useful for understanding the project structure or finding files by name.' It implies usage over alternatives like bitbucket_code_search for path-based discovery, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives.

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