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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a PR object). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste—it states exactly what the tool does without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with siblings.

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 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., source_branch must exist). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('pull request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'update_pull_request' or 'list_pull_requests', but it's unambiguous about the core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_pull_request' or 'list_pull_requests'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing repository or branches, or when creation might fail.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), which is helpful, but fails to mention important aspects like whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves specific data. It doesn't explain what a 'branch restriction' entails, the format of the returned data, or any behavioral nuances. For a read operation with no structured output definition, more context is needed to be complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single branch restriction by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_branch_restrictions', but the singular vs. plural distinction is implied through the wording.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_branch_restrictions' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing to know the restriction ID beforehand, or any explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is needed, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid hash), or what the return format includes. The description is functionally accurate but lacks operational transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what data the commit returns (e.g., metadata, diff, author info), error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'commit_hash' is the primary identifier. No syntax details, format examples, or contextual constraints are provided beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single commit'), specifying it's retrieved 'by its hash'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_commits' by focusing on single retrieval rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'get_repository_details', leaving some room for improvement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_commit' over 'list_commits' for batch retrieval, or when other tools like 'get_repository_details' might be more appropriate. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the project doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks context on authentication, error cases, and return values, which are important given the absence of annotations and output schema. However, the purpose is clear, and the parameter is well-documented in the schema.

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 the single parameter 'project_key'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is used to identify the project, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a single project'), specifying it's by key. It distinguishes from list-style siblings like list_repositories, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools (e.g., get_commit, get_pull_request) 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when not to use it, or compare to other get_* tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a pull request, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific data formats, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is returned, error handling, or behavioral traits like authentication needs, which are crucial for proper tool invocation in this context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool uses an ID to retrieve a single item, but it doesn't provide additional context like parameter constraints or examples. 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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single pull request'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pull_requests' or 'update_pull_request', which would require mentioning it retrieves only one item by ID rather than listing multiple or modifying them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_pull_requests' for multiple pull requests or 'update_pull_request' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information (implying a read operation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific repository') and adds a useful detail ('including latest commit info'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (a read operation with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes beyond commit info, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'repository_name' documented as 'Name of the repository (repo slug)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific repository'), including the scope of information ('including latest commit info'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_repositories' (which lists multiple) and 'get_commit' (which focuses on a single commit), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'detailed information' entails beyond commit info.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_project' or 'list_repositories'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection in a server with many repository-related tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not mention if it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or output format, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly. The description alone is insufficient for effective tool invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'repository_name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, but the schema adequately covers the parameter semantics, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb ('List') and resource ('branch restrictions for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_branch_restriction' (singular vs. plural), which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_branch_restriction' or other list tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is needed or if the repository must be accessible, leaving usage unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention pagination, sorting, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'commit information' includes (e.g., messages, authors, dates). This is inadequate for a read operation with potential complexity.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like pagination. For a tool that likely returns a list of commits with metadata, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 both parameters (repository_name, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a repository context, which is already covered. 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 the action ('Get') and resource ('commit information for a specific repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit' (singular) or 'list_repositories', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_commit' (for single commits) or 'list_repositories' (for listing repos), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but does not cover critical aspects such as permissions required, pagination behavior, error conditions, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, return values, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to invoke this tool correctly in a real-world scenario.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_key' documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining what a 'project_key' is or providing examples), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('default reviewers for a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_project' or 'list_repositories' in terms of scope or specificity, which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after retrieving a project), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists pull requests but doesn't describe return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a version control system.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, fields), behavioral aspects like pagination, or how it differs from siblings. For a list operation in a complex system with many sibling tools, this is inadequate.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering by repository, which is already covered by the 'repository_name' parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 all pull requests') and resource ('in a repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' (singular) or 'list_repositories', missing explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' for individual PRs or 'list_repositories' for broader context, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what happens when no repositories exist. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no wasted words. Every element ('List all repositories,' 'in the configured Bitbucket workspace') directly contributes to understanding the tool's scope and action.

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 complexity of a list operation with parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error handling, pagination, or how parameters affect results. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining why 'include_commit_info' might be useful or how 'limit' interacts with pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 all repositories') and the resource ('in the configured Bitbucket workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_repository_details' or 'list_workspaces', which would require mentioning it returns a collection rather than single items or workspace metadata.

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 specifying 'all repositories in the configured Bitbucket workspace,' suggesting this is for bulk retrieval. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_repository_details' for single repos or 'list_workspaces' for workspace-level info, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it lists workspaces but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, error conditions, or what 'accessible' entails (e.g., permissions, visibility). For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what a 'workspace' is in this context or provide details on the return format, which would help the agent use it correctly despite the low complexity.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no additional semantics are needed beyond the schema's completeness.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces') with the scope 'accessible by the current user'. It's specific about what the tool does, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_repositories' or 'list_pull_requests', which would require mentioning what makes listing workspaces distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools (e.g., 'list_repositories' or 'get_project'), leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens to unspecified settings. For a configuration mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and gets straight to the point.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what permissions are required, or how to verify success. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and external knowledge of the Bitbucket API.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, which provides detailed property documentation and even references the Bitbucket API for further details.

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 ('Update') and resource ('branching model configuration for a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'update_repository_branching_model_settings', which appears to serve a similar function at the repository level rather than project level.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from the similar-sounding sibling tool 'update_repository_branching_model_settings', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Update') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like (since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured output information, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 4 parameters (repository_name, pull_request_id, title, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing pull request'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_project_branching_model_settings' or 'update_repository_branching_model_settings', which also perform updates on different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing pull request), contrast with 'create_pull_request' for new ones, or specify scenarios where updates are appropriate (e.g., modifying titles/descriptions after creation).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or what happens to unspecified settings. It mentions 'Only passed properties will be updated' in the schema, but this crucial behavioral detail isn't in the description itself.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what permissions are required, or potential error conditions. While the schema provides good parameter documentation, the description fails to address the behavioral context needed for safe and effective use of this update operation.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter meaning or usage.

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 ('Update') and the target resource ('branching model configuration for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'update_project_branching_model_settings', which appears to target project-level settings rather than repository-level.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'update_project_branching_model_settings' or 'get_repository_details' for viewing current settings.

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