listJiraProjects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail - results are scoped to what the current user can see - but omits pagination behavior despite the presence of startAt/maxResults.

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 tight sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the tool's parameter set.

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?

With no output schema, three parameters (two undocumented), and only a one-line description, an agent lacks enough to invoke this correctly - notably whether the result set is paginated or how to iterate beyond maxResults.

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 only 33%: 'query' is documented, but 'startAt' and 'maxResults' have no schema description. The tool description adds nothing about any parameter, so the two pagination controls remain unexplained in both places.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource, but calls it 'Jira spaces' while the tool name and the schema field ('project name or key') say 'projects'. The terminology drift creates ambiguity, and there is no differentiation from the many sibling list/get tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listJiraProjectComponents or getJiraProjectVersions, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the use case 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.