jira_get_visible_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main contribution is stating the return content (keys, names, etc.). No additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are provided, but the tool is simple and the description is consistent with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The verb 'Retrieves' starts the description, and every word serves a purpose. Highly efficient 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains its purpose and return values. A minor gap is the lack of mention of pagination or sorting, but the presence of the 'recent' parameter partially addresses recency filtering.

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 100% schema coverage, both parameters (expand, recent) are already described in the schema. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves all accessible projects and lists return fields (keys, names, descriptions, metadata). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling jira_get_project_info, the use of 'all' implies a broad listing versus a single project lookup.

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 specifies that results are limited to projects accessible to the authenticated user, providing a usage condition. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_get_project_info or jira_search_issues, nor any exclusion criteria.

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