List Jira projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are limited to 'visible' projects and are paginated; it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or what visibility entails for permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved by omitting needed detail rather than by disciplined editing.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the filtering parameter and pagination contract undefined, and does not describe the returned project shape. Not enough for an agent to call it confidently beyond the trivial no-arg case.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely fails: 'pagination' loosely hints at startAt/maxResults but gives no defaults, limits, or offset semantics, and the 'query' parameter is never explained (name/key filter? fuzzy match?).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Jira projects') and adds the scope qualifier 'visible', so an agent knows it enumerates accessible projects rather than fetching one. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like jira_search_issues or jira_rest, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as jira_list_boards, jira_search_issues, or the generic jira_rest passthrough. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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