jira_get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the access scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'), the read-only list nature, and the returned fields. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but that is a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the return contents. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list operation, the description plus schema cover the essentials: scope, parameters, and return fields. The only notable gap is the potential tension between 'List all projects' and the maxResults cap, and the absence of explicit pagination guidance.

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 describes both parameters fully (query and maxResults), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which warrants the baseline score of 3.

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 a clear, specific verb ('List') and resource ('all Jira projects accessible to the authenticated user'), and specifies the returned fields (key, name, type, lead). This differentiates it from sibling tools that operate on issues, comments, or Confluence content.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need an agent to enumerate accessible Jira projects. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when NOT to use it, such as when a search across issues would be more appropriate.

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