bitbucket_list_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions returns and raises but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination behavior, or authentication 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 includes a docstring-like 'Args', 'Returns', and 'Raises' sections, which is verbose for MCP. The first sentence is clear, but the rest adds redundancy with the schema.

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, the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks information on pagination, sorting, or default limits. It covers basic functionality but misses contextual 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter names and descriptions mostly identical to the schema, adding minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'from which to find branches' for 'base').

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 'List all branches in a repository,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_default_branch' or 'create_branch'.

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 for listing branches but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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