bitbucket_pull_request_diffstat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no safety disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns only a per-file summary rather than file contents, and it is the cheapest way to see what changed, which informs latency and cost expectations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns, and the second gives the routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the key usage direction is front-loaded.

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 list-like tool with annotations already covering safety, the description covers the output ('files touched, lines +/-'), the purpose ('what changed'), and the decision boundary versus the diff tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%: repoSlug and workspace are described in the schema, but the required 'id' parameter is not. The description adds that the tool is 'for a pull request,' which mildly clarifies the role of id, but it does not fully compensate for the undocumented id parameter.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('per-file change summary for a pull request'), and the returned content ('files touched, lines +/-'). It also distinguishes itself from the full diff tool by positioning itself as the cheaper option, so an agent can tell it apart from bitbucket_pull_request_diff without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the full diff ('prefer this over the full diff unless file contents are actually needed'), giving the agent a clear decision rule. This directly addresses the alternative and the condition that selects between them.

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