atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it specifies the tool fetches comments for a 'specific' page, implying scoping, but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but somewhat redundant given the schema and annotations; they don't add significant value, keeping it efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only), high schema coverage (100%), presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' and context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by addressing usage guidelines or behavioral nuances, but it suffices for basic operation.

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 'page_id' parameter including format examples (e.g., numeric ID from URL). The description only restates the parameter name without adding meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('comments for a specific Confluence page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'confluence_reply_to_comment' or 'confluence_get_page' (which might also return comments), but the specificity is adequate for basic understanding.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'confluence_get_page' (which might include comments) or 'confluence_search' (which could find comments across pages), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid page ID or authentication context.

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