Get Project Versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about whether archived/unreleased versions are included, ordering, or pagination. It restates only the scope already implied by the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope come first and nothing is repeated.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety/idempotency profile, so the description needn't explain return values or risks. The only real gap is whether the returned set includes archived or unreleased versions, which matters for callers filtering by release state.

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%: project_key is documented with a regex pattern and examples. The description contributes nothing additional about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb + resource and a scope ('all fix versions for a specific Jira project'), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It doesn't distinguish itself from the version-related siblings (jira_create_version, jira_batch_create_versions, jira_update_version), though the read/write split is obvious from the name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid project key the user can see), and no pointer to sibling tools such as jira_create_version or jira_get_project_issues. The agent must infer that this is a lookup step preceding version creation or issue update.

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