bitbucket_get_commits

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

With no annotations, the description solely bears the burden of disclosing behavior but omits details like ordering, pagination, branch inclusion, or authorization requirements. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the core operation.

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?

Extremely concise but under-specified; the single sentence essentially restates the tool name. While brevity is valued, the description lacks necessary elaboration, making it insufficient for a complex operation like retrieving commits.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., commit objects, metadata). Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters), the description should include expected output or behavior to be complete.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (repoName, limit, branch). The description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states verb (Get) and resource (commits) for a repository. While generic, it accurately reflects the tool's purpose and distinguishes from siblings like bitbucket_get_issues or bitbucket_get_pull_requests since no other commit-retrieval sibling exists.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bitbucket_get_pull_requests). No prerequisites or context about typical use cases are provided. The single sentence lacks any usage direction.

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