bitbucket_get_merge_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only status check rather than a mutation, which is valuable given the presence of a merge sibling, and it names the result fields. It does not mention authorization requirements, whether status is computed live, or any caveats about stale results.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the concrete output keys. It could be marginally tighter but every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of naming the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Missing only the pre-merge-check guidance that would fully round out a read-only status endpoint.

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 67% with project and repo described inline (including examples) and only the numeric id left bare. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — no note about what the id refers to (pull request ID) or whether project/repo are case-sensitive — so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the merge state of a pull request') and even enumerates the key returned fields (canMerge, conflicted, veto reasons). It is clearly distinct from bitbucket_merge_pull_request, though it does not explicitly contrast with bitbucket_get_pull_request.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent would call this to check mergeability before invoking bitbucket_merge_pull_request — but the description never states that intent or names the alternative. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, so the routing must be inferred.

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