atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies that the tool returns JSON with content/metadata or an error if not found, warns about token usage with HTML content, and notes that raw HTML can reveal macros. This enhances transparency without contradicting 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses efficient sentences. However, the 'Args' section slightly repeats schema information, and the warning about token usage, while useful, could be more integrated. Overall, it is front-loaded and mostly concise.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter usage, behavioral notes (e.g., error handling, token warnings), and return values, providing sufficient context without needing to explain output details due to the 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 detailed parameter documentation in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only briefly summarizing parameters in the 'Args' section without providing additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 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 tool's purpose: 'Get content of a specific Confluence page by its ID, or by its title and space key.' It specifies the exact resource (Confluence page) and two distinct methods for retrieval, distinguishing it from siblings like 'confluence_search' (which searches) or 'confluence_get_page_children' (which gets child pages).

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 usage context: it explains when to use 'page_id' versus 'title' and 'space_key', and mentions that parameters are ignored if 'page_id' is provided. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_search' for broader queries or 'confluence_get_page_history' for version data, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.

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