bitbucket_get_pull_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information and raises an error if the client is not configured, but it does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or other side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a structured list of arguments, returns, and raises. Every line adds value, and there is no extraneous content.

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 that the tool has an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. The three required parameters are clearly documented. However, additional context about when to use this tool over sibling PR tools would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The tool description repeats parameter names and types without adding additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 detailed information about a specific pull request,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bitbucket_list_pull_requests and bitbucket_get_pull_request_diff.

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 when a specific pull request ID is known, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get diff, list, activities). No exclusion criteria or alternative mentions are provided.

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