Atlassian Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it retrieves both general and inline comments with location details, supports pagination, returns formatted Markdown output, and requires Bitbucket credentials. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or authentication specifics beyond credentials being configured.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds pagination and output details, third covers authentication. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, behavior, output format, and authentication. However, it lacks details on error cases, response structure beyond 'formatted Markdown list', and explicit sibling tool differentiation, leaving minor gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning workspaceSlug defaults and pagination via limit/cursor, but does not provide additional semantic context or usage examples for parameters like prId or repoSlug. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Lists comments'), target resource ('on a specific pull request'), and scope ('within a repository'). It distinguishes from siblings like bb_add_pr_comment (which adds comments) and bb_get_pr (which retrieves PR details), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Lists comments on a specific pull request') and mentions pagination support, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like bb_get_pr (for PR metadata) or bb_add_pr_comment (for adding comments). It offers some guidance but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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