atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains that files larger than 50MB are skipped with error entries, describes the return format (list with text summary followed by EmbeddedResources), and clarifies that resources are base64-encoded for MCP protocol access. This goes beyond the basic safety information in annotations.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, behavioral details, Args, and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about functionality, constraints, and output format without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about behavior, constraints, and output format. The main gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates well by detailing the return structure. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or rate limits.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'content_id' parameter. The description mentions the parameter in the Args section but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Download all attachments'), target resource ('for a Confluence content item'), and output format ('as embedded resources'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'confluence_download_attachment' (singular) by emphasizing 'all attachments' and from 'confluence_get_attachments' by specifying the download action rather than metadata retrieval.

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 about when to use this tool: when you need to download attachments as embedded resources without filesystem access. It implicitly distinguishes from 'confluence_download_attachment' (singular download) and 'confluence_get_attachments' (metadata only). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives by name.

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