Get Repositories

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

Annotations are rich (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). Description adds that it lists only repos the authenticated user has access to, which is a behavioral detail not in annotations. However, it does not describe pagination behavior or result size limits beyond schema.

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 clearly state purpose and scope. Efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning key parameter project_key upfront). Still, no wasted 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?

Description is sufficient for a read-only listing tool with a single required parameter and existing output schema. It covers the main use case, though omits mention of pagination or output format options (handled by schema).

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. Description does not elaborate on parameters, leaving schema to define them. No additional semantic context is provided.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'repositories for a Bitbucket project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like bitbucket_get_repository (singular) and bitbucket_search_repositories (search vs list). It also specifies scope: 'within the specified project' and 'that the authenticated user has access to'.

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?

Description implies usage context (requires project_key, lists accessible repos) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like bitbucket_search_repositories or bitbucket_get_repository. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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