atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('JSON string representing a list of label objects') and clarifies the scope of content types supported. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Args section could be more concise since it duplicates schema information. The information is appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 simple read-only nature (annotations confirm this), single parameter with full schema coverage, and existence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description provides complete contextual information. It clearly states what the tool does, what it returns, and works with, which is sufficient for this straightforward retrieval 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'page_id' with detailed format examples. The description's Args section merely repeats the parameter name without adding meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get labels') and resource ('for Confluence content') with explicit examples of content types (pages, blog posts, attachments). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'confluence_add_label' (which modifies labels) and 'confluence_get_page' (which retrieves page content rather than metadata).

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 implies usage context by specifying it works with 'Confluence content (pages, blog posts, or attachments)', but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_get_page' (which might include labels) or 'confluence_search' (which might filter by labels). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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