bitbucket_get_commits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a 'Returns' clause indicating a JSON string and mentions a ValueError condition when the client is misconfigured. However, it omits details about pagination, commit ordering, or behavior when the branch/workspace doesn't exist, so the added context is useful but incomplete.

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-organized with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by an Args list and Returns/Raises sections. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it repeats schema information verbatim, creating minor redundancy that prevents a perfect score.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description adequately covers main usage and error conditions. The Returns and Raises sections add context not in structured fields. However, it lacks guidance on pagination/continuation for large histories, which is a minor gap for a list-type 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section mostly mirrors the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Workspace name or project key') without adding deeper meaning or clarifying edge cases. It provides no extra value beyond what the schema already documents.

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 'Get commit history for a repository branch,' which is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitbucket_get_pull_request_commits (commits for a PR) and bitbucket_get_commit_changes (changes for a commit), making its niche evident.

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 'for a repository branch,' but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection based on the resource type alone.

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