atlassian-browser-mcp

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a retrieval operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the return format ('flat list' with specific attributes), efficiency benefits ('token-efficient processing'), and practical use cases. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but with annotations covering safety, this provides good additional context.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format details, usage guidance, and parameter/return documentation. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, second explains the return format benefits, third provides filtering guidance, fourth gives usage context, and the final sections document parameters and returns efficiently.

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, 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It explains what the tool does, why it's useful, how to use it effectively, what parameters mean, and what to expect in returns. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to exhaustively document return values.

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 documents both parameters adequately. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'limit' usage guidance ('start with 100 for faster results') but doesn't provide additional semantic context for 'space_key' or explain parameter interactions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 with specific verbs ('Get page hierarchy', 'Returns pages with parent_id and depth attributes') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning efficiency advantages over 'rendering full ASCII trees' and differentiating from other Confluence tools like 'confluence_get_page_children' or 'confluence_search' that serve different purposes.

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 for when to use this tool ('to understand space organization before creating/moving pages') and mentions filtering capabilities ('Filter by depth to focus on relevant sections, or find pages by title'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools among the many siblings listed.

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