List pull requests

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description itself adds no additional behavioral context, such as default filtering (state defaults to OPEN) or pagination behavior, which are captured in the schema. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero redundant words. It is front-loaded 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?

For a straightforward list operation with a rich schema (including defaults and filters) and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description provides enough context. It does not mention return values, but the name and tool nature imply a list of pull requests, and the schema covers behavior. Slight gap in not stating default state filtering, but acceptable.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of the 8 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the tool description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline 3 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 action (List) and resource (pull requests) within a Bitbucket Cloud repository. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool get_pull_request, which presumably retrieves a single pull request.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to list multiple pull requests, as opposed to getting a single pull request. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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