atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns 'JSON string representing the search results including pagination info,' which gives useful context about the output format and pagination behavior. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions beyond what annotations cover.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the Args section lists parameters, and the Returns section describes output. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter context into the main description.

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 (4 parameters), rich schema coverage (100%), annotations (readOnlyHint), and output schema (implied by Returns statement), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output format. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context like error handling or authentication needs, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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 each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'fields' explains default values and usage of '*all'). The description lists parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.

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 as 'Get jira issues from sprint' which specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('jira issues from sprint'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'jira_get_issue' (single issue) and 'jira_search' (general search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'jira_get_board_issues' or 'jira_get_project_issues' which also retrieve issues from different scopes.

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 doesn't mention when to choose this over 'jira_get_board_issues', 'jira_get_project_issues', or 'jira_search', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a sprint ID or authentication context. The only implied usage is when you have a sprint ID and want its issues.

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