atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('JSON string representing the created sprint object') and error conditions ('If in read-only mode or Jira client unavailable'). However, it doesn't mention side effects like how the sprint integrates with the board or affects existing issues.

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 (Args, Returns, Raises) and uses only essential sentences. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the purpose statement could be more front-loaded. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 (destructive operation with 5 parameters) and the presence of annotations (destructiveHint) and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, returns, and errors, though it lacks usage context and some behavioral details like permissions or side effects.

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 all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description lists parameters but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like how start_date and end_date define sprint duration). The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the documentation burden.

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 creates a Jira sprint for a board, specifying both the verb ('Create') and resource ('Jira sprint for a board'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jira_update_sprint' and 'jira_get_sprints_from_board' by focusing on creation rather than modification or retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing board), compare to similar tools like 'jira_update_sprint', or indicate scenarios where creation might fail. The only contextual hint is in the 'Raises' section about read-only mode.

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