atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a data retrieval operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by detailing what specific data is returned (dates and optional status tracking) and mentioning workflow analysis, enhancing 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on parameters and returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections slightly duplicate schema information, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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, rich annotations (readOnlyHint), full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adequately explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and return data without needing to cover every detail already provided in structured fields.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description's 'Args' section repeats this information without adding significant semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or use cases for the boolean flags.

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 date information and status transition history') and resources ('for a Jira issue'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'jira_get_issue' which likely returns broader issue data. It precisely defines the scope of data retrieved.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—specifically for obtaining date-related information and status history. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling Jira tools, such as 'jira_get_issue' for general issue data.

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