get_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read ('Get all'), but provides no additional details such as return format, pagination, or any limitations. This is minimally transparent but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word earns its place, making it exemplary in conciseness and structure.

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 simple, zero-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately captures its purpose. The lack of an output schema or annotations does not require more explanation, though mentioning the return type would have been a small improvement.

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, so description-based parameter explanations are unnecessary. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 'Get all Jira projects' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('Jira projects') and scope ('all'), making it distinct from the sibling 'get_project' which implies a single project. This directly states what the tool does.

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 a complete list of projects is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it fails to contrast with 'get_project' for single-project lookups, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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