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 behavioral context: it specifies this is a batch operation (not just a read), clarifies what 'development information' includes ('PRs, commits, branches'), and mentions the return format ('JSON string with list of development information for each issue'). This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, a scope clarification, a parameter listing, and a return statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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, comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual information. It explains what the tool does, its batch nature, what development information includes, and the return format, making it fully adequate for agent understanding.

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 adds minimal value by listing parameter names in the Args section but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline 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 specific action ('Get development information'), resource ('for multiple Jira issues'), and scope ('Batch retrieves development panel information (PRs, commits, branches) for multiple issues at once'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'jira_get_issue_development_info' by emphasizing batch processing for multiple issues rather than single-issue retrieval.

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 ('Batch retrieves... for multiple issues at once'), which implicitly suggests using the sibling 'jira_get_issue_development_info' for single issues. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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