atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the API used ('new Jira Forms REST API'), the return content ('ADF design structure'), and error handling ('or an error object if failed'). This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations, though it could mention 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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It uses bullet-like sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' for clarity. However, the 'Uses the new Jira Forms REST API' sentence could be integrated more seamlessly, and some redundancy exists in restating parameters. Overall, it's efficient with minor room for improvement.

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 complexity (a read operation with specific parameters), annotations cover safety, schema fully documents inputs, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), reducing the need for return value details. The description adds API context and error handling, making it fairly complete, though it lacks usage guidelines for sibling differentiation.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (issue_key and form_id). The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only restating the parameters in the 'Args' section without providing additional context like format examples or usage tips. This meets the baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific ProForma form.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('ProForma form'), and scope ('detailed information'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'jira_get_issue_proforma_forms' or 'jira_get_issue', which might retrieve forms or issue details differently. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 mentions the API ('Uses the new Jira Forms REST API') but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'jira_get_issue_proforma_forms' for listing forms. Without such context, users may struggle to choose appropriately.

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