bitbucket_commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists actions and gives an example for get_diff, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The word 'Manage' suggests mutation capability but no action modifies data.

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 very concise: one introductory sentence and a bullet list of four actions. Each action gets a clear one-line description. No wasted words or repetition.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, pagination behavior, error scenarios, or output format specifics. The 'format' parameter is listed but not explained in the description. Critical context for a complex tool is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning spec format in the get_diff example, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter guidance is provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states managing Bitbucket commits and diffs with four specific actions (list, get, get_diff, get_diffstat). It differentiates from sibling tools like bitbucket_branches by focusing on commits.

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 description implies usage for commits tasks but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not instructions compared to siblings. The get_diff example gives a hint for usage, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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