bitbucket_get_commits

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

No annotations exist, and the description omits behavioral details such as pagination behavior (implied by limit/start parameters), ordering, or what constitutes a commit. The description does not contradict annotations but fails to disclose important traits.

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 concise at one sentence, but it lacks critical usage and behavioral information, making it slightly under-specified for effective tool selection.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of pagination parameters, the description should mention pagination and result format. The current text is too minimal for an agent to confidently use this tool correctly.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 fetches commit history for a repository, which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like bitbucket_search_commits, which implies filtered 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bitbucket_search_commits, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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