bitbucket_get_commit_changes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions a return value of 'JSON string containing commit history' but this contradicts the tool name's implication of getting changes. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects, nor does it specify any rate limits or authentication nuances.

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 reasonably concise but includes an Args list that repeats the schema, making it slightly redundant. The structure is clear, but the first sentence is misleading given the tool name and sibling tools.

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?

Despite having an output schema (mentioned in context), the description's ambiguity about whether it returns commit history or changes for a specific commit undermines completeness. It fails to clarify the tool's exact behavior, which is critical for correct use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The Args list restates the schema parameters without adding new context (e.g., format or semantics of the returned JSON). Thus it adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Get commit history for a repository branch' but the tool name is 'get_commit_changes', which typically refers to the diff of a specific commit. The parameters include commit_id and hash_newest, which suggest retrieving changes for a specific commit, not a branch history. This inconsistency with the sibling tool 'bitbucket_get_commits' (likely for history) further blurs the purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling tool 'bitbucket_get_commits' likely serves a similar purpose, but the description does not explain the difference or when to prefer one over the other.

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