bitbucket_list_directory

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 adds value by specifying the return format ('JSON string containing directory contents') and the error condition ('ValueError: If the Bitbucket client is not configured or available'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior for non-existent paths beyond the schema. This is adequate but not rich.

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 organized with a one-sentence purpose followed by structured Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is not overly long, but the Args section duplicates the schema. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a 4.

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?

For a straightforward listing tool, the description covers purpose, arguments, return format, and error conditions. It lacks contextual notes about sorting, hidden files, or path error handling, and could benefit from an explicit mention that it differs from get_file_content. Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of schema descriptions, it is reasonably complete; score 4.

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%, with all four parameters already described in the schema. The description's Args section largely mirrors the schema, adding the 'empty for root' note for path and the 'default: main' for branch, both already present in schema defaults. No new semantic information is added, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List the contents of a directory in a repository.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bitbucket_get_file_content (which fetches a file) and bitbucket_list_repositories (which lists repositories). The scope is clear (directory contents).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_file_content or list_branches. The usage is implied by the name and description. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided. This earns a 'minimal viable' score of 3.

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