bitbucket_list_pull_requests

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string) and raises ValueError if the client is not configured, adding useful behavioral context. It also mentions the state filter, clarifying that only PRs matching the given state are returned. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured with clear Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and each section adds necessary information. No fluff or redundant 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?

For a simple list tool with three parameters and an output schema (signaled by 'Has output schema: true'), the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameters, return format, and an error case. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is sufficiently complete. A score of 4 reflects a thorough but not exhaustive description.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description repeats the parameter names and purposes but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 starts with 'List pull requests for a repository', which clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (pull requests scoped to a repository). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' (single PR) and 'bitbucket_create_pull_request' (create). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 context for when to use the tool (to list PRs, optionally filtered by state) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The existence of sibling tools like get_pull_request implies the distinction, but no direct guidance is given. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance, so a 3 is appropriate.

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