list_jira_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission-based scoping ('projects that the user has permission to view'), which is a meaningful behavioral trait implying read-only access. However, it does not explain response format, pagination, or error behavior, leaving gaps for a list call.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second states the practical value. Front-loaded and free of filler, clichés, or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what it lists, under what permission constraint, and why it is useful. It could mention the return shape more explicitly, but 'lists projects' plus the 'discovering' use case is adequate for correct invocation.

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%; the schema fully explains the `expand` parameter including examples. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it rests at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists all Jira projects') and adds a precise scope ('that the user has permission to view'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_confluence_spaces or search_jira_issues, since no other tool focuses on enumerating Jira projects.

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 second sentence explicitly states a use case: 'useful for discovering available projects to work with.' This gives clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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