atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that files larger than 50 MB are not downloaded inline and return an error message, and it explains the return format (base64-encoded embedded resource or TextContent for errors). This enhances transparency about size limits and output behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details on behavior and returns. Every sentence adds necessary information (e.g., size limit, error handling, return types) with zero waste, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), the description is complete: it covers purpose, behavioral constraints (size limit), output format, and error handling. With annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, no additional context is needed, even without an output schema.

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%, with the schema fully documenting the 'attachment_id' parameter, including an example and workflow guidance. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without extra value.

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 specific action ('Download an attachment from Confluence') and resource ('as an embedded resource'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'confluence_download_content_attachments' (which downloads multiple attachments) and 'confluence_get_attachments' (which lists attachments without downloading). The verb 'download' is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to download a single attachment as an embedded resource. It implicitly distinguishes from 'confluence_download_content_attachments' by focusing on a single attachment ID. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, missing full explicit guidance.

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