bb_get_pull_request

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It describes a read operation (getting metadata) but does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. The implied safety is adequate but not explicit.

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 plus a parameter list, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence is useful with no redundancy or waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and key return fields. Lacks behavioral depth but is sufficient for a simple read tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description's parameter list largely repeats what the schema already provides (names, defaults). It adds no new semantic information beyond listing the arguments.

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 'Bitbucket PR's metadata', listing specific fields (title, description, author, branches, reviewers, state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_request_status or bb_get_pull_request_diff.

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 use for retrieving PR metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bb_get_pull_request_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the context is clear.

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