bbkt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether actions are read-only or destructive (e.g., 'stop' implies mutation), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response formats. This is inadequate for a multi-action tool with potential write operations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's unified nature and lists all actions without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (12 parameters, multiple actions including potential mutations like 'trigger' and 'stop'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond listing action names, which are already in the 'action' parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose as a 'unified tool for managing Bitbucket Pipelines' and lists six specific actions (list, get, trigger, stop, list-steps, get-step-log). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on pipelines rather than commits, issues, PRs, etc., though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. It merely lists actions without indicating scenarios for each, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter descriptions.

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