jira_project

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

The description discloses that mutation actions reject 'full: true' and read actions can return raw responses, which is a behavioral detail. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not cover other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., deletion cascades).

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 structured into a clear list of actions with parameter requirements, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the overall purpose. However, there is slight redundancy: the opening sentence repeats the scope covered later in the action list. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 complexity (25 parameters, 11 actions) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains each action's required and optional parameters, the 'full' parameter behavior, and mutation vs read actions. Some edge cases or return value details could enhance completeness, but it adequately covers core usage.

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?

With schema description coverage at 16%, the description significantly compensates by explaining which parameters are required for each action. For instance, it states that 'listComponents' requires 'projectIdOrKey', while 'createComponent' requires 'project' and 'name'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though some parameters like 'query' remain unexplained.

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 tool manages Jira projects, components, versions, and statuses. It lists specific actions, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like jira_board or jira_epic, which could lead to confusion about when to use this tool instead.

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 context for each action (list, get, create, etc.) and their required/optional parameters, implying when to use them. Yet it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons with alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use jira_project vs jira_issue for project-related tasks.

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