jira_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the read operation ('Get') and gives no information about permissions, response format, error handling, or expand behavior. The description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the purpose.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the 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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description lacks detail on what 'detailed information' includes and how the expand parameter affects the response. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves some gaps, but the core purpose is clear enough for a basic GET operation.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, including examples for projectIdOrKey and expand. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for not detracting from 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?

The description 'Get detailed information about a specific JIRA project' clearly states the verb (get), resource (JIRA project), and scope (specific), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like jira_list_projects and jira_get_issue. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus jira_list_projects, jira_search_projects, or other siblings. It neither states the intended use case nor mentions any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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