bitbucket_pull_request_list_statuses

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral scoping by specifying that statuses are read for the 'current head commit' of the pull request, which clarifies the exact object being inspected and warns about scope in a way the schema alone does not.

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?

A single, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the practical use case. No filler or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 operation, the description sufficiently covers what is retrieved, on which resource, and for what purpose. The lack of an output schema and pagination notes is acceptable given the tool's simplicity, though a brief note on interpreting status results would improve completeness.

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 67%, with the required 'id' parameter undocumented. The description compensates by clarifying that the object is a pull request and that statuses are on its current head commit, giving agents enough context to infer that 'id' is the pull request identifier.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('build/CI statuses'), and precise scope ('on a pull request's current head commit'). The added usage cue 'check whether a PR is safe to merge' makes the tool's role clear and distinguishes it from generic commit-status listing.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: checking whether a PR is safe to merge based on build/CI statuses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like bitbucket_pull_request_merge_status or bitbucket_commit_list_statuses, so exclusions are absent, but the intended context is clear.

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