list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of options with label, value, and type, explaining what each field means. It indicates the operation is a read-only list (no side effects). Could mention pagination or ordering but not necessary for a simple list.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by output format and usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Nothing missing.

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?

Tool has zero parameters. Score baseline is 4. Description adds value by explaining the output format and usage, going beyond the schema. It effectively makes the tool self-explanatory despite no parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'List all Jira projects visible to Zephyr' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on cycles, executions, etc. The mapping from name/key to projectId is explicitly mentioned.

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?

Gives explicit usage advice: 'Use this to discover ids; most tools also accept a project key/name directly.' This tells when to use the tool (to get numeric ids) and implies when not needed (if key/name works directly). No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but clear context.

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