bitbucket_commit_diffstat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns a summary per file rather than content, which is useful behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations and adequately communicates the operation's nature for a read-only tool.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is optimal for quick agent parsing.

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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description provides the essential purpose and usage guidance. It omits details about the exact contents of the summary (e.g., lines added/deleted) and there is no output schema, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context. The description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 67% (spec and workspace have descriptions; repoSlug lacks one). The description provides an example for the spec parameter ('base..head'), which adds a bit beyond the schema's 'A commit hash, or base..head range'. However, it does not clarify repoSlug, leaving a gap that the description could have addressed. Given moderate coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Get the per-file change summary for a commit or commit range'. It specifies the resource (commit) and the result type (per-file summary), and gives a concrete example of the range format. This distinguishes it from siblings like bitbucket_commit_diff, which returns the full diff.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer over the full diff unless file contents are actually needed.' This is a direct when-to-use vs. alternative instruction, pointing the agent to bitbucket_commit_diff when file contents are required. No other exclusions are necessary given the tool's specific scope.

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