Get build status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: the exact verdict enum values and the meaning of NO_STATUSES, which is not in the schema. This extends beyond annotation coverage.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then usage, then verdict values, then the NO_STATUSES caveat. Every sentence contributes essential information, and the most critical usage points are 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?

With no output schema, the description explains the verdict values and their semantics. It also addresses the common pitfall of interpreting NO_STATUSES. For a simple read-only status lookup, it covers everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds clarification that commit and pr_id are mutually exclusive options, and that omitting both uses HEAD — a nuance not fully captured by the schema alone (schema only mentions commit defaults to HEAD). This pushes it to 4.

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 immediately answers 'is this commit green?' and explicitly states the mechanism (Bitbucket commit build statuses). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_pipelines as an alternative for the NO_STATUSES case, making its purpose unique and clear.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on how to select the target: pass commit or pr_id, and defaults to HEAD if neither is given. It also tells the agent when to fall back to list_pipelines (when verdict is NO_STATUSES), giving clear usage context.

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