jira_get_project_versions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It lacks mention of authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the project key is invalid. The short description does not disclose these.

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?

Single sentence front-loaded with verb and resource. No wasted words; efficient and clear.

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 getter with output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify if 'fix versions' includes only unreleased or all, or any ordering. Slightly incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100% (project_key is well-described). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by stating 'for a specific Jira project', but this is redundant.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'all fix versions' for a specific Jira project. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_project_issues and jira_get_all_projects by specifying 'fix versions'.

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 implies usage (when you need fix versions for a project) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given siblings like jira_create_version, some differentiation would help.

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