List projects

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those hints: the read is paged internally, `paging.partial` indicates more results exist upstream, and callers should narrow `query` accordingly. This helps the agent reason about incomplete lists.

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 carry real content: the resource and returned fields, the name-to-key purpose, query behavior, and paging caveat. There is no filler or repetition, and important operational guidance is front-loaded after the core purpose.

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 list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the returned fields, filtering behavior, open-world paging semantics, and the practical reason to call the tool. The annotations already cover safety and idempotence, and the schema covers parameter details, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, with the schema already explaining `query` matching against name/key and the profile fallback behavior. The description reinforces the query filtering semantics and adds the 'narrow query when partial' guidance, but it does not add substantial meaning for the `profile` parameter 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 clearly states the operation ('Lists the Jira projects you can see') and enumerates the exact fields returned: id, key, name, project type and lead. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like jira_get_project as an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear practical context: use it to map a project name to the key that other tools want, and use `query` to filter. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the intended usage is clear.

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