bb_search_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that this tool will not work on this Bitbucket Server (v7.12.1) and directs the agent away. It doesn't describe would-be success/error behavior, but that is largely moot because the endpoint is disabled.

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?

One compact sentence states unavailability, the server version, and the replacement tools. No filler or repetition; the most important warning is front-loaded.

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 disabled endpoint, the description tells an agent everything needed to avoid a doomed call and pick alternatives. It could be more complete by briefly noting what code search would have done and why get_file/list_directory are substitutes, but the guidance is still actionable.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema already documents most parameters (text, path, repo, project, branch, since, start) with high coverage. Since the tool is disabled, parameter details are secondary; the schema is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as a code-search endpoint but does not explicitly state its intended action (searching code content) with a verb and resource; instead it mainly says the endpoint is disabled. It conveys enough for a rough idea but doesn't differentiate it from related tools like bb_search_repositories.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool ('Not available', 'endpoint is disabled') and names concrete alternatives ('use get_file / list_directory instead'). This is exactly the when-not/alternative guidance needed for a disabled tool.

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