get_all_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Get all Jira projects,' which implies a read-only operation but does not discuss behavior such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are limited to accessible projects. Without this context, the agent may misuse the tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place. For a simple list-all tool, this is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description 'Get all Jira projects' is functional but lacks completeness. It does not specify whether the tool returns projects from all Jira instances, only those the user can access, or if there are any filters applied. A more complete description would clarify scope, such as 'returns all Jira projects accessible to the authenticated user.'

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 input schema has zero parameters, so 100% schema coverage is trivial. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4 as per the rubric. The description is sufficient in this dimension.

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 'Get all Jira projects' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (all Jira projects), making it easy to understand the tool's purpose. While brief, it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_project_issues or get_project_versions, which operate on subsets. However, it could be more specific about scope (e.g., whether archived or inaccessible projects are included).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to use get_all_projects instead of search_tickets or get_project_issues. An agent would lack clarity on the appropriate context for selecting this tool.

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