atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description aligns with by using 'Get.' The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('JSON string with watcher count and list of watchers') and error conditions ('Raises: ValueError: If the Jira client is not configured or available'), enhancing behavioral context without contradiction.

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 in the first sentence. However, the 'Args:' and 'Raises:' sections, while informative, could be more integrated or concise, as they slightly extend the length without fully optimizing for brevity, though overall it remains efficient.

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), annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' details), the description is mostly complete. It explains the return format and errors, but lacks usage guidelines, which slightly reduces completeness for agent decision-making in context with many sibling tools.

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 input schema fully documenting the 'issue_key' parameter including its pattern and example. The description repeats the parameter name but adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'list of watchers for a Jira issue,' making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'jira_add_watcher' and 'jira_remove_watcher' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification, with no tautology present.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured Jira client), comparison with similar tools like 'jira_get_issue' for broader issue data, or scenarios where watcher information is specifically needed, leaving usage unclear.

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