atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context about what specific information is retrieved (development panel info from connected source control systems like Bitbucket, GitHub, GitLab). It also describes the return structure in detail, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 (purpose, details, Args, Returns) and appropriately sized. However, the parameter documentation in the description is somewhat redundant given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 read-only nature (annotations), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains what development information means, mentions connected source control systems, and details the return structure, making it fully adequate for this tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description's 'Args' section essentially repeats the schema information without adding significant semantic value beyond what's already in the structured fields.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'development information (PRs, commits, branches) linked to a Jira issue.' It specifically distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'jira_get_issue' or 'jira_get_issues_development_info' by focusing on development panel information from source control systems.

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 when development information is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'jira_get_issue' or 'jira_get_issues_development_info'. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't provide guidance on when those filters should be applied.

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