jira_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 clearly conveys a non-mutating read operation by saying 'get list,' but it does not mention scoping details such as whether only visible/accessible projects are returned, or whether archived projects are included. This is adequate for a simple zero-parameter list tool but not rich.

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 short Russian sentence that front-loads the action ('Получить список'). It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, and is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 operation, the description is essentially complete: an agent knows exactly what to call and what to expect conceptually. The lack of an output schema and annotations means return-shape details are not provided, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description does not need to add anything here.

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 translates to 'Get the list of all Jira projects,' which clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (Jira projects), and specifies scope (all). It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, which focus on issues and Confluence spaces, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs the full list of Jira projects, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. There is no close sibling that lists projects, so ambiguity is low, but the usage guidance remains implicit rather than stated.

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