bitbucket_get_pull_requests

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only says 'Get pull requests' and does not mention default behavior (e.g., limit=10, state=OPEN), ordering, pagination, or any side effects. It does not indicate whether results are sorted or filtered beyond schema defaults.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it lacks important context. While it earns its place, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema). A slightly longer description with key defaults would improve value.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior (despite limit parameter), or what happens when no PRs match. It also omits details about default state and ordering.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb 'get' and resource 'pull requests' for a repository. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'bitbucket_get_pull_request' which retrieves a single PR. The plural 'pull requests' implies a list, but this is not explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bitbucket_get_pull_request for a single PR or bitbucket_create_pull_request for creation. The description lacks context about typical use cases or exclusion criteria.

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