listJiraProjects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the authentication requirement and accessibility constraint, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential pagination, fields returned, or performance characteristics, which could be relevant for a list operation.

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 no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the action and resource.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core intent and the key constraint. Minor gaps include absence of mention about pagination or the specific project fields returned, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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, so there are no parameters to explain. Per rubric, 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4, and the description adds appropriate context about the user's accessible projects.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of projects... from Jira'), and adds a key scope condition ('accessible to the authenticated user'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like listJiraIssues (issues vs projects) and readJiraProject (list vs 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?

The description provides clear context by specifying that it retrieves projects accessible to the authenticated user, implying this is the right tool when you need all projects the user can see. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as referencing readJiraProject for a single project.

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