jira_project_summary

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

Without annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It states the tool reads open issues and returns aggregated data, with no side effects mentioned. While it doesn't explicitly declare read-only, the content implies it. The description adds behavioral context beyond schema, such as stale definition and output scope.

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 concise: two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence covers the main purpose and elements, the second clarifies output type. Every word adds value, and it's front-loaded with key information.

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 output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the main functionality: what data is returned (counts by status, type, priority, unassigned, stale) and parameter details. It lacks error or edge-case info, but for a summary tool, the coverage is adequate.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented (project key example and staleDays default). The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning 'stale days' implicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides sufficient parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to summarize a Jira project's status from open issues, including counts by status, type, priority, unassigned, and stale issues. The verb 'Resume' and resource 'project' are specific, and the tool is distinct from siblings like jira_get_issue or jira_search, which handle individual issues.

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 obtaining aggregated project data without assessment, and clarifies it returns data, not evaluations. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context shows it's for overviews. The 'no assessment' note provides clear guidance on output nature.

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