jira_get_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and 'available' hints that results may depend on user permissions. However, it does not mention pagination, output shape, or authentication constraints, though these are less critical for a zero-parameter list operation.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and object. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description states the essential operation and result kind. It could add detail about permission-dependent availability or returned project fields, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 is empty with no properties, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters that need additional explanation. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with zero 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Jira projects' and clarifies scope with 'all available'. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling jira_get_project, which targets a single project, and from issue-focused siblings such as jira_search_issues.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_get_project or jira_search_issues. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred selection criterion, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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