atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by explaining that attachments are returned as base64-encoded embedded resources for MCP protocol access, which clarifies the output format and accessibility. It does not contradict annotations and enhances understanding of the tool's behavior.

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, starting with the core purpose, followed by return behavior, and then parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the return format (list with summary and EmbeddedResources). However, it could provide more on error handling or edge cases (e.g., what happens if no attachments exist), leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'issue_key' parameter with examples and a pattern. The description adds minimal param info in the 'Args' section, restating the parameter name without providing additional meaning beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline 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 specific action ('Download attachments') and resource ('from a Jira issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_get_issue' or 'confluence_download_attachment' which handle different resources or operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 by specifying 'from a Jira issue,' which helps differentiate it from Confluence-related tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_get_issue' (which might provide issue details without attachments) or provide exclusions, leaving some room for interpretation.

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