list_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Read-only behavior is implied by 'List' and the filtering semantics are stated, but auth requirements, result ordering, pagination totals, and error behavior are never disclosed. Adequate for a low-risk listing tool, but thin for a definition with zero annotation coverage.

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 operation and then the use cases; no redundancy. The use-case list is slightly generic filler ('understand the evolution of a branch'), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

With 100% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description need not explain return values or field formats. It covers purpose, filters, and usage contexts; only cross-tool disambiguation and pagination/ordering expectations are missing, which are minor for a read-only list endpoint.

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 all six parameters (limit, start, author, branch, project, repository) are already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the client-side matching caveat for author. The description only restates branch/author filtering, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List commits in a Bitbucket repository') plus the scoping modifiers (branch/author filters). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_branches, list_pull_requests, or get_diff without opening any schema.

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 second sentence gives concrete use cases ('review commit history, find specific changes, track contributions, understand the evolution of a branch'), which is clear routing context. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions, so an agent isn't told when to prefer get_diff or browse_repository instead.

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