health-check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-mutating diagnostic, but says nothing about whether failures raise an error versus returning a status, whether credentials are required from the environment, or what side effects (if any) a credential validation causes. 'Validate credentials' is the only behavioral hint offered.

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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 one-optional-param diagnostic with no output schema, the definition covers the 'what' but not the 'what comes back' — an agent cannot tell whether the result is a boolean, a structured status, or an exception on failure. That is a meaningful gap for a health-check tool whose entire value is its result.

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 100% and the single optional 'workspace' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Optional workspace to test access.' The description adds no further meaning about what testing a workspace entails or what happens when it is omitted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair and object: 'Check connectivity to Bitbucket API and validate credentials.' That is unambiguous about what the tool does and sets it apart from the CRUD/read siblings listed, none of which appear to be diagnostics. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly frames itself as the 'auth/diagnostic' tool relative to those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight or troubleshooting check, but the description gives no explicit conditions such as 'use before other calls if you get 401s' or any when-not guidance. No alternative tool is named, though no sibling appears to overlap.

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