bitbucket_source_get

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 valuable behavioral context: the dual file/directory behavior, the root path convention, and the metaOnly optimization for large files. It doesn't mention rate limits or error cases, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is solid.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the root path behavior is stated compactly, and the metaOnly tip is actionable. Every sentence 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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an 80% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the dual behavior, the root path convention, and the large-file optimization. It doesn't describe the return format, but there is no output schema and the description's mention of 'contents' and 'metadata' gives enough context for an agent to proceed.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the path omission behavior (root) and the metaOnly use case (checking size/type before fetching large contents). It doesn't add detail for repoSlug or workspace, but those are self-explanatory and the schema covers them.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a file's contents or list a directory at a given revision'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitbucket_commit_get or bitbucket_repository_get. It also clarifies the dual behavior (file read vs directory listing) and the root path behavior, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (reading files or listing directories at a revision) and provides a specific usage tip: use metaOnly:true first for anything that might be large. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list is broad and the description's context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over others.

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