bb_get_pull_request_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves CI status but omits details like whether it's read-only, authentication needs, or what happens when no status exists. This is minimally adequate for a simple get 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?

The description is a single clear sentence followed by a concise parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous text.

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 the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool (a read operation on CI status), the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It lacks mention of potential edge cases but is sufficiently complete for a straightforward retrieval 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?

The description's parameter details ('pull_request_id: The PR id (number)', etc.) essentially repeat the schema descriptions. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new semantic value, meeting the baseline for this dimension.

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 explicitly states 'Get CI/build status for a Bitbucket PR's latest commit', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bb_get_pull_request which retrieves PR metadata.

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. The description does not mention exclusion conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with similar tools like bb_get_pull_request, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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