list_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. It states the tool lists accessible projects and returns keys, names, and types, but does not disclose aspects like pagination, read-only status, or any side effects. The behavior disclosed is minimal but not misleading.

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 only two sentences long and immediately states the main action. The second sentence provides practical guidance without any wasted words or repetition.

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 list operation, this description adequately covers the core purpose and usage context. The output fields are named, and the tool's relationship to sibling operations is clear. It does not describe every edge case, but the schema handles parameter-level details.

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 100%, with all three parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, nor does it conflict with it. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists accessible Jira projects with their keys, names, and types, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly connecting to the workflow of finding project keys before creating issues or running JQL queries.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: to find the correct project key before creating issues or running JQL queries. It does not mention alternatives by name, nor does it provide exclusionary conditions, but the use case is clearly defined.

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