bitbucket_commit_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the output is a full unified diff and that it can be scoped to one file, which is meaningful because no output schema exists. It does not mention potential size/pagination or access prerequisites, but it adds value beyond the annotations.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and 'Prefer diffstat first' packs meaningful guidance into four words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low schema coverage and absent output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It correctly identifies the response type and scope, but leaves out the spec format, explicit alternatives like diffstat or pull-request diff, and any limit on commit-range length. An agent can likely proceed, but some inference is required.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for 'spec' ('commit or commit range') and 'path' ('optionally scoped to one file'), but it does not specify the exact format expected for the commit range or for repoSlug, and workspace is only handled by the schema. This is helpful but not fully compensating for the low coverage.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('full unified diff for a commit or commit range'), and adds scope ('optionally scoped to one file'). It is clearly distinct from the diffstat sibling by emphasizing 'full unified diff', so an agent can separate it from bitbucket_commit_diffstat.

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 instruction 'Prefer diffstat first' provides clear ordering guidance and implies this tool is for the full diff after consulting the summary diffstat. It does not explicitly name the diffstat sibling or contrast with pull_request_diff, but the commit/commit-range scope and the preference instruction give enough context to route correctly.

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