readJiraProject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and listing issue types gives some output context. Yet it omits behavioral details like error handling, permission requirements, or the exact structure of the 'detailed information' beyond issue types, leaving ambiguity.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Retrieves detailed information about a Jira project') and appends a specific detail ('including all available issue types with their IDs'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has one fully described parameter and no output schema. The description gives a general promise of 'detailed information' but only specifies issue types as an example return element. Without an output schema, the agent may be unsure of the full extent of what's returned, though the read-only nature and simple input reduce risk. Additional clarification of the returned fields 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the 'projectIdOrKey' parameter is clearly described in the schema). The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics, but it does imply the tool's scope aligns with that parameter. Per the rubric, a score of 3 is baseline for high schema coverage with no additional parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as a Jira project, with the added detail of including issue types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listJiraProjects (which lists projects) and listJiraIssues (which lists issues), and aligns with the read-only intent of the tool.

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 phrase 'detailed information' implies the tool is for when a user needs in-depth data about a single project, contrasting with list tools that provide summaries. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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