get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly discloses the access-scoping behavior ('accessible'), implying results are permission-filtered. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size limits, which are relevant for a list endpoint that can return unbounded results.

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 eight-word sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the verb and resource; every word 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?

An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the basic intent, but for a list endpoint with no annotations it omits practical concerns like pagination and default ordering that an agent may need. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to describe. Baseline is 4 for a parameterless tool. The description adds nothing here but has nothing to add.

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 (List) and resource (Jira projects) with a scope qualifier (accessible). This distinguishes it from get_project (singular) in the sibling list, though it doesn't explicitly say 'as opposed to get_project'.

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 mention of alternatives like get_project for a single project, no indication of when the returned list is appropriate versus searching. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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