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 annotations: it specifies that the tool retrieves content at a specific version, mentions the return format ('JSON string'), and provides important guidance about token usage implications when using HTML format. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 front-loads the core functionality. However, the Args section adds minimal value since schema coverage is complete, making those lines somewhat redundant. Overall efficient but could be more concise by omitting the parameter list.

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, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, parameters (via schema), behavioral implications, and return format, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters with detailed descriptions and examples. The description's Args section merely repeats parameter names without adding meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Get a historical version') and resource ('specific Confluence page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'confluence_get_page' (current version) and 'confluence_get_page_diff' (comparison). The verb 'Get' combined with 'historical version' provides precise differentiation.

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 when a historical version is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_get_page' (for current version) or 'confluence_get_page_diff' (for comparing versions). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than clearly defined.

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