bb_list_endpoints

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers side-effect safety, so the bar is lower. The description reinforces this by describing search/find operations with no mutation language. It also adds context about the source (Atlassian OpenAPI spec), which is helpful. A slight improvement could be an explicit 'does not modify any resources', but not necessary given the annotation.

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, no filler. It packs purpose, usage context, and a search tip into a tight, well-structured format. The example 'pull request comment' vs 'comment' is concise and effective.

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 discovery tool, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how to use its main parameter, and the downstream step (bb_request). The presence of an output schema means the return value doesn't need to be explained. Everything an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is covered.

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 descriptions cover all five parameters, so baseline is 3. The main description adds valuable semantics for the `search` parameter (whitespace-separated terms must all match and that using more terms narrows results), which goes beyond the schema 'Terms matched against...'. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 tool searches the full Bitbucket Cloud REST API to find the right method, path, and params. It explicitly differentiates itself from purpose-built siblings by positioning itself as the fallback when no bb_* tool covers the task.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this FIRST whenever no purpose-built bb_* tool covers what you need') and how to integrate with the workflow ('pass the result to bb_request'). Also explains the multi-term AND search behavior with a concrete example, leaving no ambiguity.

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