list_pull_requests

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. 'List' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm this, mention permission requirements, or describe side effects. The schema covers pagination parameters like limit and start, so key operational details are present elsewhere.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by concrete usage examples. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 seven parameters but 100% schema description coverage, the structured input is well documented. There is no output schema, so the description does not explain the return shape or ordering, but for a standard list operation the purpose and usage context are sufficiently covered. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit read-only confirmation without annotations.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema with defaults, enums, and filter semantics. The description mentions state, author, and direction filters but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already states. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List pull requests in a Bitbucket repository filtered by state, author, or direction.' This clearly identifies the operation and its filtering scope. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the singular sibling get_pull_request, but the plural/list framing makes the distinction largely self-evident.

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 clear usage contexts: finding open PRs, seeing pending reviews, discovering PRs awaiting merge, and getting an overview of PR activity. It does not state when not to use this tool or name explicit alternatives, but the intended usage is well articulated.

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