Get Pull Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying default state (OPEN), default order (newest first), and filtering by text. Contradicts no annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words. Every sentence adds essential 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?

Given full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the main filtering and defaults. Could mention pagination (start, limit) but those are in schema. No major gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'filtered by state, direction, and text' and clarifying the default order ('ordered by newest first'), which goes beyond the schema's 'default: null' for order.

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?

Clearly states 'List pull requests for a repository' with filtering criteria. Distinguishes from siblings like bitbucket_get_pull_request (single PR) by specifying list operation.

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?

Describes what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like bitbucket_get_pull_request or bitbucket_get_pull_request_changes. The sibling list is external, and the description lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' hints.

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