bb_detect_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the git inspection process, the two-level child search fallback, the multi-result listing behavior, and the complete return shape. This is unusually transparent for a tool description.

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 compact and information-dense: it defines the primary behavior, the fallback behavior, the ambiguity case, and the return shape in two sentences. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description is almost complete: it explains inputs, edge cases, and the returned object. The only notable gaps are the unspecified behavior when no git repo is found at all and the exact shape of the multi-candidate output, though the instruction to re-invoke mitigates this.

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?

The schema already documents the single `dir` parameter well, including relative/absolute paths and examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that it accepts a project folder but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific action: given a folder, locate its .git directory, read the origin remote URL, and parse out project key and repo slug. This clearly differentiates it from the server-side Bitbucket sibling tools, which operate on remote repositories rather than local folders.

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 states when the tool searches children, how deep it searches, and what to do when multiple repos are found ('you must re-invoke with one of them'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use case is strongly implied by the behavior and return value.

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