bitbucket_get_commits

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions return type (JSON string) and ValueError for missing client, but omits pagination behavior, default ordering, and the fact that no branch parameter is accepted despite saying 'for a repository branch.' This omission can mislead.

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, using a standard Docstring format with Args/Returns/Raises. No unnecessary words, though it could be shortened by not repeating parameter names.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core operation but lacks detail on default branch behavior, ordering of results, and pagination implications. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but gaps remain.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter details (e.g., 'inclusively') largely duplicate the schema. It adds no new constraints or usage context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get commit history for a repository branch,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bitbucket_get_commit_changes (which gets changes for a specific commit) and bitbucket_get_pull_request (which gets PR details).

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, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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