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 useful context about fuzzy matching behavior and the refresh parameter's purpose (force refreshing the field list), which goes beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when the keyword is empty (though the schema covers this).

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function.

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 that this is a read-only search tool with comprehensive schema documentation (100% coverage), annotations providing safety context, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: JSON string'), the description is complete enough. It explains the fuzzy matching behavior and refresh parameter context that aren't captured in structured fields, making it well-rounded for this complexity level.

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 schema itself. The description mentions 'keyword for fuzzy search' and 'refresh: Whether to force refresh the field list,' which aligns with but doesn't significantly expand upon the schema documentation. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already does 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 specific action ('Search Jira fields by keyword with fuzzy match'), the resource ('Jira fields'), and the method ('fuzzy match'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'jira_get_field_options' or 'jira_search' by focusing specifically on field metadata search rather than field values or general issue search.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (searching Jira fields by keyword with fuzzy matching). It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the tool's specialized purpose makes its usage context reasonably clear compared to siblings like 'jira_get_field_options' (which gets options for specific fields) or 'jira_search' (which searches issues).

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