bitbucket_get_pull_request_commits

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 format (JSON string with commit details), the limit semantics (all commits if unspecified), and raises ValueError when the client is not configured. This is good coverage for a read-only tool, though it omits details like ordering or auth requirements.

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 clear Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It front-loads the main purpose. Minor redundancy: 'If limit is not specified, all commits are returned' appears twice, but overall it is concise and organized.

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 tool's moderate complexity and rich sibling context, the description adequately covers purpose, return value, error handling, and limit behavior. It does not detail pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for basic invocation. The presence of an output schema (JSON string) reduces the need to describe return structure further.

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 repeats parameter info already present in the schema (e.g., workspace, repository, pull_request_id). It adds little beyond the schema; the limit description in the text is even slightly less detailed than the schema's. No extra semantic value is provided.

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 the list of commits included in a pull request', using a specific verb and resource. It further details the returned fields (hash, author, timestamp, message) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bitbucket_get_commits by scoping to a pull request.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate, mentioning you can 'trace what changes were introduced and by whom'. It also explains the limit parameter's behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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