List PRs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns results sorted newest first and respects the `limit` parameter. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or pagination beyond the limit, but the annotations significantly reduce the burden.

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 two sentences, directly front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. No fluff or irrelevant 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?

For a list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: scope, filters, limit, and sort order. It does not describe the response object fields, but given the openWorldHint and the standard nature of Bitbucket PR data, this is sufficient. Slightly less complete than the ideal because it doesn't mention alternatives or edge cases.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description restates that filtering is possible by state, author UUID, or branch, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('pull requests in a Bitbucket repository'), and the scope (filterable by state, author, or branch). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pr (single PR) and create_pr.

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 usage for listing PRs with filters but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_pr for a single PR or list_pr_comments for comments. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the context implicit.

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