atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by describing a retrieval operation. It adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: filtering logic (specific image formats, MIME type fallback), size limits (skips images >50 MB with error entries), and output structure (list with summary and ImageContent items). No contradiction with 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific details on filtering, fallback logic, size limits, and return format. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it explains the filtering behavior, error handling for large files, and output format. However, it could slightly enhance completeness by mentioning authentication needs or rate limits, though annotations cover the safety aspect adequately.

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 the 'issue_key' parameter well-documented in the schema (including pattern and example). The description mentions the parameter in the Args section but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying it's for retrieving image attachments. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 images attached to a Jira issue as inline image content') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on image extraction only, unlike broader attachment tools like 'jira_download_attachments' or 'jira_get_issue'. It explicitly mentions filtering to image formats and excluding non-images.

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: to retrieve image attachments from a Jira issue in a format suitable for direct rendering. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on images only, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for non-image attachments).

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