atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about state filtering and pagination behavior, which is useful but doesn't fully disclose aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured Args/Returns section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter details in the description slightly overlap with the schema. Overall, it's well-organized and concise.

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, 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main purpose, parameters, and return format, though it could benefit from more usage context or error handling info to be fully comprehensive.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats some parameter info (e.g., state options) but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or edge cases. 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 action ('Get jira sprints from board') and resource ('sprints'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_get_sprint_issues' or 'jira_get_agile_boards', which would require more specific scope clarification for a perfect score.

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 implies usage through the parameter explanation ('by state') and mentions that 'If None, returns all sprints', providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jira_get_sprint_issues' or 'jira_search', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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