Get Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description needs to add value beyond those. It adds a behavioral note that the tool returns only projects the authenticated user has access to, which is useful but not extensive. No contradictory information is present.

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 very concise with three short sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second clarifies scope, and the third highlights key filters. No extraneous text.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and key filters, and the existing schema and output schema handle pagination (start, limit) and response format. It is complete enough for a filtered-list tool with good annotations. However, a brief mention of pagination control could make it slightly more self-contained.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats that name filters by name and permission filters by access level, but this adds no new meaning beyond the already well-documented schema parameters. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Get a list of Bitbucket projects' with a specific verb and resource. It also notes that it returns only projects the user has access to, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bitbucket_get_project (singular) or bitbucket_get_repositories, leaving some room for confusion.

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 usage by stating the tool returns projects and allows filtering by name and permission. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a single project is needed vs. a list), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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