bitbucket_code_search

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

The read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints are already provided by the annotations, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds a useful scoping phrase ('across a workspace's repositories'), but does not disclose result shape, pagination, or anything beyond the annotation truth.

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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward read-only search tool, though it does not carry extra structural richness.

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 small read-only search tool, the purpose, required parameter, workspace default, and maxItems constraint are reasonably discoverable from the schema and annotations. The description is missing output/result-format guidance and does not mention sibling routes, but the overall definition is still adequate for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is moderate at 67%, and the searchQuery and workspace parameters already have useful descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the existing schema covers the majority of what an agent needs.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('code across a workspace's repositories'). It clearly identifies the tool as a code search rather than a repository/source-fetch tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with a sibling tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bitbucket_source_get or bitbucket_repository_list. No exclusions or conditions are given, so the agent must infer the use case from the tool name and short description.

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