list_secret_scanning_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or output format). Since annotations cover safety, the description adds no extra transparency, scoring at baseline.

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 extremely concise: one sentence explaining the purpose and one sentence for the version requirement. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. No wasteful or redundant information.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what the return value looks like (e.g., whether it's paginated, sorted, or includes all rules). Given the annotations and full schema coverage, it is minimally adequate but lacks richness: no mention of typical use cases or result limits.

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 100%: all three parameters ('fields', 'project', 'repository') have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for parameter semantics.

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 specifies the verb 'List', the resource 'secret scanning allowlist rules', and the scope 'for a repository'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_branches or list_repositories, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 includes a version requirement ('Requires Bitbucket Server 8.5+'), which provides a necessary precondition. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it. No comparison with sibling list tools is given.

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