jira_get_projects

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. While the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, there is no explicit disclosure of safety, authentication needs, or scope (e.g., 'Does not modify any data'). The description lacks behavioral details beyond the implied read nature.

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 extremely concise (4 words), front-loading the core action and resource. Every word adds value, and no information is redundant or extraneous.

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?

Given no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description is minimal. It tells what the tool does but does not specify the format of the returned list, any default behavior, or scope (e.g., 'all projects accessible'). For a simple tool, this may be sufficient, but additional context could 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. Per guidelines, zero parameters warrants a baseline of 4. The description does not contradict or mislead regarding parameters.

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 list of Jira projects' clearly states the action (get) and resource (list of Jira projects), leaving no ambiguity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_issue or jira_get_project_versions by specifying the resource type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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