The Bechdel test is concerned with only a specific subset within the many parameters with which a piece of fiction can be appraised, so it can't help but being limited by its own narrownness in its ability to tell us whether a piece of fiction is good or not. The Bechdel test can only tell you that a piece of fiction passed the Bechdel test or not. It will not tell you anything about all other aspects that we have learned to use to judge a work of art (harmony, unity, rhythm, psychological maturity etc). Since it's possible that a work of fiction can fail the Bechdel test (because, for instance, the author committed the unspeakable sin of making *its protagonist male*) and still be good fiction, it seems to be fairly useless as a general appraisal tool for me.
What I mean is there are richer approaches. What I mean is, yeah, don't be like the lady who asks if all the band members are white males.
Also, before everybody starts telling me to check my cis privilege or whatever is the parlance of the times, I must point out that the question of the test's utility is disputed within the very academic environment where it thrives. The encyclopaedic knowledge pipes in:
"The Bechdel test only indicates whether women are present in a work of fiction to a certain degree. A work can pass the test and still contain sexist content, and a work with prominent female characters can fail the test.[2] A work may fail the test for reasons unrelated to gender bias, such as because its setting works against the inclusion of women (e.g., Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, set in a medieval monastery).[3] For these reasons, the Telegraph film critic Robbie Collin criticized the test as prizing "box-ticking and stat-hoarding over analysis and appreciation", and suggested that the underlying problem of the lack of well-drawn female characters in film ought to be a topic of discourse, rather than films failing or passing the Bechdel test.[26]"