bitbucket_list_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states return type (JSON string) and raises ValueError, but does not explain pagination semantics, branch_filter pattern syntax, or whether 'base' limits to branches derived from that base. Some behavior is still opaque.

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 efficient: a one-sentence summary followed by structured Args/Returns/Raises blocks. No fluff, but the Args block duplicates schema information which slightly reduces value.

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?

The tool has an output schema and a clear description of returns/errors, so it is reasonably complete for a list operation. However, it doesn't address potential pitfalls like large limits or how branch_filter matches (exact vs substring), leaving some gaps.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, and the description essentially repeats them. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify default behavior when base or branch_filter are omitted.

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 'List all branches in a repository' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling Bitbucket tools such as list_pull_requests or get_commits.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description ('when you need to list branches'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling comparisons are made.

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