bitbucket_get_commit_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (build state, key, name, URL), the behavior of returning all builds when limit is omitted, and raises ValueError for client misconfiguration. This is solid transparency for a read-only tool, though it does not discuss edge cases like invalid commit hashes or rate limits.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a returns section, an Args list, and a Raises section. It is front-loaded with the core intent and each section serves a functional purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool is simple and read-only, the schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. The description adds important context such as usage scenarios, return value shape, and error handling, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to successfully invoke this tool.

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 4 parameters (100% coverage). The Args section largely repeats the schema verbatim, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all CI/CD build statuses for a specific commit.' It clearly differentiates from sibling Bitbucket tools like get_commits or get_pull_request by focusing narrowly on build statuses for a commit.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Use this to check whether all required pipelines passed before merging a PR or to identify which specific build failed.' It also explains limit behavior. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, so it misses the 'when-not' criterion for a 5.

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