bitbucket_get_issues

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

No annotations are provided, and the description merely restates the tool name ('Get issues for a repository'), offering no behavioral context beyond what the name implies. It fails to disclose pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other operational traits.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving conciseness. However, it lacks structure or front-loading of critical information, though it is still appropriately short.

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 simple tool with a well-covered schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits context about what 'issues' means in Bitbucket, the return format, or any default behavior not in the schema, such as sorting or pagination limits.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage or relationships.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'issues' for a repository, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bitbucket_create_issue or bitbucket_get_repositories, but lacks further detail about the scope or filtering.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bitbucket_get_pull_requests or bitbucket_get_repositories. No explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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