atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that project keys are always returned in uppercase, mentions the JIRA_PROJECTS_FILTER configuration effect, and details error conditions (ValueError for client issues). This enriches the agent's 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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loaded the core purpose. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff, though the Args section slightly repeats schema information. Every sentence serves a purpose, such as clarifying output format and error conditions.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, read-only), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter context, return value details (including formatting and configuration effects), and error handling, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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, with the parameter 'include_archived' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by briefly mentioning the parameter in the Args section but does not provide additional semantics or usage nuances. 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 ('Get all Jira projects') and resource ('accessible to the current user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_get_project_issues' or 'jira_get_project_components' which focus on specific project details rather than listing all projects. The verb 'Get all' is precise and unambiguous.

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 by stating it retrieves projects 'accessible to the current user' and mentions the 'JIRA_PROJECTS_FILTER' configuration, which provides some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_search' or 'jira_get_project_issues', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the error handling note.

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