list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavior disclosure. It only states the basic action and scope; it does not explain whether 'available' means all projects in the Jira instance or only those visible to the user, nor does it disclose pagination, output format, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to its purpose. This is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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 very simple (0 parameters, no output schema), so the description need not be extensive. However, the absence of any detail about return values (e.g., whether it returns project keys, names, or IDs) leaves the agent without crucial context. Given the lack of an output schema, the description should have compensated with at least a hint about the response structure.

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?

Since the tool has zero parameters, the description is not required to add parameter semantics. The input schema is empty and fully covers all parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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') and resource ('Jira projects') with a scope qualifier ('all available'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that target worklogs, tasks, sprints, or subtasks. It leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for listing projects, the description does not mention exclusions (e.g., if you need tasks, use list_my_tasks) or any specific context where this tool is preferred. This is a minimal viable statement with no usage orientation.

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