jira_get_project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what "details" encompasses, whether archived/deleted projects are resolvable, or what errors occur for an unknown key. With annotations present the bar is lower, yet this description contributes zero additional behavioral context.

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 four-word phrase with no wasted words and is trivially front-loaded. Its brevity, however, crosses into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, so it does not earn a 4.

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 a simple single-parameter read with a fully documented schema and an output schema, so return values need not be explained. It is minimally adequate, but the vague term "details" leaves the agent unsure what project attributes are returned or how this differs from listing projects.

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% and the single required parameter (key) is fully documented in the schema with an example pattern. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it.

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?

"Get project details" gives a clear verb and resource, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like jira_list_projects (which also deals with projects) or jira_get_issue (same get-by-key pattern), leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 use this tool versus jira_list_projects or other project-related tools, and no stated prerequisites such as required project permissions or whether the project must exist. The agent must guess the intended usage context.

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