bitbucket_commit_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, such as the fact that it lists from a ref, but doesn't disclose details like pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether it includes merge commits. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could arguably add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 read-only list operation with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention return format, pagination, or how it differs from related commit tools. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), a bit more context would help an agent select and invoke 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 description coverage is 50%, with 'revision' and 'workspace' having descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'maxItems' and 'repoSlug' parameters lack descriptions in the schema, and the description doesn't compensate for those gaps, so the baseline 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 'List commits on a branch/ref' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bitbucket_commit_get (which fetches a single commit) and bitbucket_branch_list (which lists branches), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage context by mentioning 'branch/ref', and the schema's revision parameter description clarifies that it can be a branch, tag, or commit. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bitbucket_commit_get or bitbucket_commit_list_statuses, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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