jira_get_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the tool's basic function. It fails to mention whether authentication is required, what projects are included (all user-accessible or all in instance), or any limitations. This is a serious gap for a read 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it is under-specified and could include additional context (e.g., output format) without becoming verbose. It earns its place but could do more.

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 does not explain the return value or output format, and there is no output schema to compensate. Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters), the description should at least mention what kind of data is returned (e.g., project keys, names) or note if pagination applies. This makes it incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. According to the baseline guideline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get a list of projects in Jira' clearly states the action (get) and resource (list of projects). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as jira_search_issues and confluence_get_spaces, as no other tool provides a project listing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other Jira or Confluence tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or context like 'use this to retrieve all accessible projects; for filtered search use jira_search_issues'.

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