jira_get_visible_projects

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns project metadata. However, it does not disclose potential pagination behavior, rate limiting, or performance implications beyond the annotation.

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 one clear sentence that covers the core purpose and output. It is efficient, though adding structure (e.g., listing returned fields) could slightly improve scannability.

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?

The description adequately explains the return value (keys, names, descriptions, metadata) despite no output schema. However, it omits details on pagination, ordering, or result limits, leaving some gaps for a list retrieval tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description does not add extra meaning or usage context for 'expand' or 'recent' beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score applies.

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 action (retrieves), the resource (all projects accessible to the authenticated user), and the specific data returned (keys, names, descriptions, basic metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_project_info which targets a single project.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., jira_get_project_info for single project details). The description implies it's for listing, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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