atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this: it mentions 'fuzzy search' for board_name and specifies the return format ('JSON string representing a list of board objects'). However, it lacks details on pagination behavior (implied by start_at and limit but not explained), error handling, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline 3.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args/Returns section. It avoids redundancy, but the Args section largely repeats schema information without adding value, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 (5 parameters, read-only operation), the description is reasonably complete. It states the purpose, lists parameters, and specifies the return format. With annotations covering safety and an output schema present (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values or behavioral risks. However, it could improve by explaining parameter interactions or usage scenarios.

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 each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., defaults, constraints, examples). The description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats parameter names and mentions 'fuzzy search' for board_name, but doesn't provide additional semantics like how filters combine or format specifics. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get jira agile boards by name, project key, or type.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('jira agile boards'), and filtering criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling Jira board-related tools like 'jira_get_board_issues' or 'jira_get_sprints_from_board', which would require a 5.

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 through the listed filtering parameters (name, project key, type) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether this is for listing all boards versus searching specific ones, or how it differs from other board-related tools in the sibling list.

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