get_repository_contents

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

No annotations provided, but description transparently states it returns a JSON object with directory listing or file contents. Mentions default ref (HEAD). Does not discuss side effects or auth, but as a read operation, it is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Highly concise: one opening sentence, bullet-style use cases, and structured Args block. No redundant information. Front-loaded with essential purpose.

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?

Comprehensive for a tool with 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. Covers all parameters, defaults, and return type. Output schema exists, so return details are complete.

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 0%, but the description includes an Args section that meaningfully explains all four parameters, including defaults and semantics (e.g., 'empty string for root', 'default: HEAD'). Fully compensates for lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get file or directory contents from a BitBucket repository' with specific verb and resource. Explains use cases for browsing, viewing structure, and reading contents. Distinguishes from sibling get_file_content by covering both files and directories.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use this tool to browse repository contents, view file structure, or read file contents.' Mentions navigation to specific paths and refs. However, does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools like get_file_content.

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