bb_list_commits

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list', implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, authentication needs, rate limits, or ordering of results. Pagination is hinted at in the schema but not in the description. More disclosure is needed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key optional feature. No extraneous words.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should outline what the tool returns (e.g., commit metadata like author, date, message). It also fails to mention that pagination is supported (though schema shows it). The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already described. The description adds 'optionally for a specific branch/tag/hash', which paraphrases the 'revision' parameter's schema description. This adds minimal new meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 lists commits in a Bitbucket repository, with optional filtering by branch/tag/hash. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like bb_list_branches or bb_list_pull_requests, though it does not explicitly call out those differences.

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 over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. For example, it could note that bb_get_pull_request_diff shows commits for a specific PR, while this tool lists all commits in a repo.

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