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 behavioral context by mentioning pagination (start_at, page_token), Cloud vs Server/DC differences for page_token, and that it returns JSON with pagination info. However, it does not detail rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond what annotations imply.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the main functionality. However, the parameter listing in the description is somewhat redundant given the comprehensive schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 (7 parameters, JQL-based search), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format. With annotations covering safety and an output schema likely detailing results, it provides adequate context, though it could benefit from more usage examples or 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 detailed descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description lists parameters but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how limit and start_at work together). It provides a baseline understanding without extra insights.

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: 'Search Jira issues using JQL (Jira Query Language).' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Jira issues'), and method ('using JQL'), which distinguishes it from other Jira tools like jira_get_issue or jira_get_project_issues that retrieve specific issues or project issues without JQL-based searching.

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 by mentioning JQL for searching, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_get_issue (for single issues) or jira_get_project_issues (for project-specific retrieval). It provides context for the search functionality but lacks clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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