bb_get_commit_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation is a 'get' but does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 sentence, nine words, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains zero wasted words. It is concise and appropriately sized for a straightforward GET-like tool.

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 tool has no output schema and touches on pagination and output format parameters, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain what the response looks like or what 'CI/CD build statuses' includes. The agent must rely entirely on the schema and API knowledge, making it inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and many siblings.

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 schema already documents all parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only clarifying the general purpose (statuses for a commit) but not elaborating on how parameters interact (e.g., pagination).

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('CI/CD build statuses'), and the scope ('for a specific commit'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_commit (commit details) and bb_get_pr_statuses (PR statuses).

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context with sibling tools like bb_get_pr_statuses or bb_get_pipeline.

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