list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read-only listing and includes an authentication scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'), but it does not describe output shape, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple listing tool this is partially sufficient, but more detail on the return format would be better.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. It contains zero filler and every word contributes meaning, making it perfectly concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must provide enough information for an agent to know what to expect from the call. It states that it lists projects, but does not indicate the fields or structure of each project object in the response. This leaves a gap for an agent that needs to use the returned data in subsequent operations, so a score of 3 is warranted.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail since none exist.

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 the specific action (List), the resource (Jira projects), and the scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'). It is immediately distinct from sibling tools like search_issues and get_issue, which target issues rather than 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 description provides clear context: it lists all projects the user can access, which implies when to use it (when a project list is needed). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. Since the sibling tools operate on issues, the distinction is obvious, but explicit exclusion is missing, so a 4 is appropriate rather than a 5.

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