jira_projects_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the listing behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact return shape ({total, projects: [{id, key, name, project_type, lead}]}), providing transparency 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?

Two concise sentences plus a clear return format. Every word is informative with no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Despite the output schema being present, the description provides the return structure explicitly, which is helpful. For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, the description is complete and requires no elaboration.

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 description coverage is 100% (both 'query' and 'max_results' have descriptions). The description's mention of filtering by name or key aligns with the 'query' parameter but adds no new information beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists Jira projects with optional filtering by name or key. The verb 'List' and resource 'Jira projects' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like jira_projects_get or jira_projects_create_version.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The purpose is self-explanatory, but there is no mention of when to avoid it or what alternatives exist (e.g., jira_issues_search for issues).

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