bb_get_commit_parents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait (cardinality: one parent normally, two for merges), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not mention behavior for root commits, missing commits, or the response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the useful cardinality note is included without bloating the description.

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?

For a simple read-only getter, the description is minimally sufficient and the cardinality insight helps. But with no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, there are notable gaps around return format and how commitId is identified.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. Only commitId is vaguely implied by 'a commit'; projectKey and repoSlug are left entirely unexplained, so an agent has no guidance on how to fill two of three required parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('parent commits of a commit'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like bb_get_commit and bb_list_commits. The parenthetical cardinality note adds precision.

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 when to use the tool — whenever parent commits are needed — but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives or states when not to use it. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the phrasing and sibling names.

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