Get All Projects

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals the operation is safe. The description adds useful context that results are limited to projects accessible to the current user and that archived projects can be included via the parameter. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or the effect of the include_archived default, so it provides only modest additional value.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope, with no unnecessary fluff. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It selects the tool's scope (all accessible projects) and the presence of an output schema means return values are already defined elsewhere. Given the low complexity and rich structured metadata, no additional description is needed.

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 fully describes the single parameter (include_archived) with a default and description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: retrieving all Jira projects accessible to the current user. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('all projects') with a clear scope ('accessible to the current user'). While it distinguishes from some siblings by emphasizing 'all' and user accessibility, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like jira_search_projects, so it misses the top score.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that jira_search_projects might be better for filtering or searching projects, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. There is only an implied usage context from the tool's name and description, which is insufficient.

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