bb_list_pull_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination (page, pagelen), default ordering, or rate limits. The mention of optional state filtering is already implied by the parameter enum.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters), but it's appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, workspace default, or error cases. It is minimally complete, leaving many operational questions unanswered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the state filter. No parameter-level context is provided.

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's function: 'List pull requests in a Bitbucket repository, optionally filtered by state.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('pull requests in a repository'), distinguishing it from siblings like bb_get_pull_request (single PR) and bb_list_pull_request_activity (activity).

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 bb_get_pull_request for single PRs or bb_list_pipelines for pipelines. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., repo_slug required) or situations where filtering isn't appropriate.

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