audit_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur; 'assigns smart Risk Scores' is ambiguous and could imply writes.

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 two concise sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The phrase 'Enterprise-grade' is minor marketing fluff, but the rest is efficient and earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits when to choose this over audit_sprint, behavioral safety details, and any expectations about output, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or format guidance for the projectKey parameter, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: it audits Jira projects and analyzes health, workload, and risk scores. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool audit_sprint, leaving an agent to infer the project-vs-sprint distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tool audit_sprint. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for project-level audits rather than sprint-level audits.

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