bitbucket_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: writes are rejected unless BBKT_API_ALLOW_WRITE is set, pagination is supported, and the tool returns raw HTTP status and JSON body. This covers safety and operational aspects adequately.

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 concise, using three sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage guidance, and finally behavioral details. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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's nature as a passthrough with moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, pagination, auth restrictions, and return format. It is completely sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds useful context beyond the schema, such as pagination defaults, method default, and read/write behavior. This enriches understanding without repeating schema info.

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 that the tool is an 'Authenticated passthrough to ANY Bitbucket Cloud REST API v2 endpoint', specifying the verb as passthrough and resource as API endpoints. It distinguishes itself from sibling typed manage_* tools by noting usage for endpoints not covered by them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Prefer a typed manage_* tool when one fits; use this for the long tail instead of calling the API yourself.' It also explains that writes are rejected unless an environment variable is set, helping agents avoid errors.

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