bitbucket_list_pull_requests

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string and raises ValueError if client is not configured. It describes the state filter but does not mention pagination or ordering behavior. 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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and structured with Args, Returns, Raises sections. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 list tool with good schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return type, and error cases. It does not mention ordering or result limits, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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%, baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that workspace can be a name or project key, and lists the allowed state values (OPEN, MERGED, DECLINED), which are not enum in schema but are effectively enumerated. This aids correct invocation.

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.' Clearly states the action (list) and the resource (pull requests for a repository). Distinguishes from siblings like bitbucket_get_pull_request (single PR) and bitbucket_create_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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives, but the name and sibling context clearly indicate it's for listing all PRs, while get_pull_request is for a single PR. No explicit when-not guidance, but clear enough for an AI agent to differentiate.

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