jira_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds context about authentication ('accessible to the authenticated user'), which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, output format, or potential large response sizes, which are relevant for a 'list all' 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it communicates the core purpose efficiently.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description states the action and scope but lacks return-value details and pagination behavior. The parameter schema is complete, but the 'all' semantics might require clarification. Overall, it is adequate but with room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters ('expand' and 'recent'), including examples and type clarifications. The description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('JIRA projects'), and scopes the action ('accessible to the authenticated user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_get_project (single project) and jira_search_projects (search/filter).

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 implies usage for retrieving all accessible projects, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope ('all') contrasts with sibling tool names. No exclusions are stated.

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