atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (not a contradiction). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses pagination behavior ('starting index for pagination', 'maximum number of results'), mentions that results include 'pagination info', and specifies the return format ('JSON string'). This compensates well for the lack of other annotations.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized, though the parameter listing in the description is somewhat redundant given the comprehensive schema. Every sentence serves a purpose, but minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 (6 parameters, filtering/pagination), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return format. With annotations providing readOnlyHint and an output schema existing (implied by 'Returns' section), key behavioral and output aspects are addressed. However, it could better differentiate from sibling search tools for full 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly (including examples for JQL, defaults for fields/start_at/limit/expand, and constraints). The description lists parameter names but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline score of 3 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get all issues linked to a specific board filtered by JQL'), identifies the resource ('board issues'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'jira_get_project_issues' or 'jira_get_sprint_issues' by specifying board-based filtering with JQL.

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 mentioning JQL filtering for board issues, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_search' or 'jira_get_project_issues'. It provides no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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