bitbucket_pull_request_merge_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the context that this is a follow-up status check for an in-progress merge, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what the response looks like or whether the status check consumes the task (e.g., one-time vs pollable). With annotations covering safety, 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?

One sentence, zero waste, and the key context (follow-up to a merge reported in progress) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 status-check tool with readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent when to call it (after a merge reported in progress) and what it checks. The only minor gap is not describing the return format, but with no output schema and a simple status check, this is acceptable.

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 repoSlug and workspace documented. The description doesn't add meaning for id or taskId beyond what the schema provides, but the tool name and description imply taskId is the merge task identifier. The description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters, but the schema covers half and the context is fairly inferable. 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 clearly states the tool checks the status of a merge that was previously reported as in progress, referencing the sibling tool bitbucket_pull_request_merge. It identifies the specific resource (merge status) and the context (a prior merge operation). It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool in the description, but the reference is clear enough to distinguish it from other pull request tools.

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 when to use this tool: after bitbucket_pull_request_merge reports a merge still in progress. This is a clear context signal, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The reference to the merge tool provides enough guidance for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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