atlassian_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly explains that the tool does not open a browser, captures cookies out-of-band, and details the deadlock problem. It also mentions automatic reuse of cookies, providing comprehensive behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations would 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 front-loaded with the key message ('Report how to authenticate. Cookies are captured OUT-OF-BAND.') and provides necessary context without excessive verbosity. A few sentences could be trimmed, but each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's unique behavior.

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 no annotations and low schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains the authentication flow, why browser login is avoided, and the steps to authenticate. It omits details about return values, but an output schema exists (not shown) which may compensate. Overall, it is mostly complete for agent use.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'url' and 'target'. While it mentions Jira and Confluence, it fails to describe what 'url' represents or how 'target' influences behavior. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the tool 'reports how to authenticate,' which is a clear purpose. It distinguishes itself by explaining that it does not open a browser but provides out-of-band instructions. However, the exact nature of the 'report' (e.g., returning status or instructions) is implicit, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicitly states when not to use the tool ('does not open a browser') and provides an alternative method (cookie capture via Chrome extension and CLI import). It explains the deadlock issue, offering strong guidance on proper usage versus alternative approaches.

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