jira_get_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 states the action ('List') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or return format (e.g., list of project objects). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'List' entails (e.g., format, pagination) or behavioral aspects like authentication needs. For a tool in a Jira context with multiple siblings, more guidance on output and usage would improve completeness.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could theoretically mention implicit constraints (e.g., no filtering options). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available Jira projects'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'jira_get_project' (singular), which might retrieve a specific project, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'jira_get_project' (likely for a single project) and 'jira_search_issues' (which might involve projects), there's no indication of when this list-all tool is preferred, such as for browsing or initial setup, leaving usage context unclear.

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