atlassian-browser-mcp

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

Annotations provide 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning it returns 'JSON string representing the worklog entries,' which hints at the output format but lacks details like pagination, error handling, or authentication needs. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral insights.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. However, the 'ctx: The FastMCP context' in Args is redundant for tool invocation and could be omitted, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's front-loaded and wastes little space.

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 (single parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: JSON string'), the description is mostly complete. It covers the basic action and output format. However, it lacks context on authentication or error scenarios, which could be helpful for robust usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'issue_key' fully documented (description, pattern, type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid issue keys or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 worklog entries for a Jira issue.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('worklog entries for a Jira issue'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'jira_get_issue' or 'jira_get_issue_watchers', which also retrieve issue-related data but for different resources.

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 prerequisites (e.g., requiring authentication via 'atlassian_login'), compare it to similar tools (e.g., 'jira_get_issue' for general issue data), or specify use cases (e.g., tracking time spent on an issue). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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