bitbucket_commit_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond those. It does not clarify what 'details' includes, whether the commit parameter accepts a hash or ref, or what the response contains.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, which is good. But it is under-specified rather than well-structured, providing little beyond the tool name's obvious meaning.

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?

With no output schema, minimal parameter descriptions, and many closely related commit siblings, the description does not give an agent enough information to know exactly what data is returned or how this tool differs from commit_diff or source_get. It is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 33%, with only workspace described, and the tool description does not explain repoSlug or commit. The phrase 'one commit's details' weakly implies the commit parameter identifies the target, but it fails to compensate for the two undocumented required parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one commit's details'), and the word 'one' distinguishes it from bitbucket_commit_list. However, 'details' is vague and it doesn't explicitly differentiate from commit_diff, diffstat, or statuses siblings.

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_commit_list, bitbucket_commit_diff, or bitbucket_source_get. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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