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 useful context about query types (simple vs CQL) and result format (simplified page objects), but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 (description, Args, Returns) and efficiently conveys essential information. However, the Args section could be more concise since it largely duplicates schema information that's already available to the agent.

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?

With annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description provides adequate context. It explains the dual query approach (simple/CQL) and result format, though could benefit from more behavioral context about search limitations or performance characteristics.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly with examples and constraints. The description's Args section repeats basic parameter info but adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 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 verb ('Search') and resource ('Confluence content'), specifies the search methods ('simple terms or CQL'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_search_user' (which searches users) and 'jira_search' (which searches Jira).

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 for searching content, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'confluence_get_page' for direct retrieval or 'jira_search' for Jira content. It provides clear guidance on query types but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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