bb_list_commit_builds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the data source and the fields returned, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, error behavior, or any read-only guarantees beyond the verb 'list', which is a moderate gap.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return field details are presented compactly. Every sentence adds value.

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 adequately sketches the return shape ('key, state..., and URL'), which is helpful since there is no output schema. However, it is incomplete regarding parameter semantics and behavioral details like pagination, and it does not say what happens when no builds exist or the commit is not found. For a simple list operation this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented repoSlug and projectKey parameters. It only reinforces that commitId corresponds to 'a commit', which the schema already states as 'Commit SHA'. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('build statuses for a commit'), and even names the data source ('CI providers reporting to Bitbucket'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bb_get_commit or bb_list_commits, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need CI build statuses for a specific commit, identified by the required commitId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool covers build statuses, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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