get_build_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the auth requirement (authenticated Bitbucket connection), that results are paginated, and that an empty list is a valid non-success outcome. It does not state that the operation is read-only in so many words, nor what errors/rate limits look like, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: purpose first, then the input-sourcing hint, then the result-interpretation caveat. The most decision-relevant information (what it returns, and how to read an empty result) is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return as a paginated list of build states plus CI URLs and by warning about empty results. It does not enumerate the per-status fields (state/name/url) an agent would receive, so it is strong but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, so limit/start/commitHash are already fully documented in the schema, including the 40-char pattern and nextPageStart pagination hint. The description's only added parameter meaning (fromRef.latestCommit) duplicates the schema text, so this is the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get build states and CI build URLs ... for a commit') and names the auth context (authenticated Bitbucket connection). It is clear and unambiguous, but it never distinguishes itself from a potentially overlapping sibling such as get_code_insights, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives concrete guidance on the required input ('Use the pull request fromRef.latestCommit as commitHash') and an important interpretation rule ('an empty list means no build statuses are recorded, not a successful build'). There are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, so it stops at 4.

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