bitbucket_list_workspaces_or_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string) and a possible error (ValueError if client not configured). However, it does not mention other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, read-only nature, performance characteristics, or pagination. The disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus returns/raises sections. Every part adds value. It is front-loaded with the core function and immediately states the output and error conditions. No extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, output format, and a key error condition. It could mention that the client must be configured (implied by error) or the scope of accessible items, but overall it is sufficient for a list-only tool with no parameters.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds context by specifying the output format (JSON string). This exceeds the baseline slightly.

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 it lists accessible workspaces (Cloud) or projects (Server/DC). It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'workspaces or projects' and distinguishes the deployment type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bitbucket_list_repositories or bitbucket_get_repository_info, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use (when you need a list of workspaces or projects) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There is no explicit context for selection among sibling tools, and no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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