List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further — no pagination behavior, no default for maxResults, no sense of result volume on a large site — so it earns only baseline credit.

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 that front-loads the resource and appends the optional filter without waste.

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 simple three-parameter list tool this is adequate, but with no output schema the agent gets no indication of what a project record contains or whether results are truncated by maxResults. A short note on default page size would have closed the gap.

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 67%: `site` and `query` are documented in the schema, and the description's filtering clause merely restates `query`. The undocumented parameter `maxResults` is not addressed at all, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Lists) and resource (Jira projects) plus the optional filter scope, which clearly separates it from jira_get_project (singular lookup). It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase "optionally filtered by a name/key substring" implies the enumeration use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus jira_get_project (single project) or jira_list_sites (site enumeration). Usage is implied rather than guided.

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