Get project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: the project parameter is a key or numeric id, not a name, and Jira returns the same 404 for nonexistent projects and projects without permission, so the error message mentions both possibilities. This error-equivalence disclosure is genuinely useful for an agent handling failures.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second explains the call context; the third disambiguates the parameter and error semantics. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-project read operation with three parameters and one required field, this description is complete. It names the returned entity types, gives the use case, specifies the parameter format, and explains the 404 behavior. The safety profile is fully covered by annotations, and the schema documents the remaining parameters. No critical gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description raises it by clarifying the project parameter: '`project` is a key or a numeric id. Not the project name.' It also explains why the returned data matters (per-project issue type ids and component/version names), which gives semantic meaning to the output. This is meaningful added value beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Reads one project in detail', and enumerates the exact contents (description, lead, issue types, components, versions). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like jira_list_projects (which lists projects) and jira_get_issue (which reads issues). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives strong context for when to use this tool: 'what you need before creating an issue, because issue type ids and component/version names are per-project.' This implies the alternative of using jira_create_issue without this lookup is risky, and it routes the agent to this tool first. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state when *not* to use it (e.g., use jira_list_projects for just a list of keys), so it stops short of a 5.

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