get_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it retrieves data (implied read-only) and mentions authentication ('accessible to the authenticated user'), but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or error handling. It adds some context but not rich behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently convey usage guidelines without waste. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and authentication context, but could improve by mentioning output format or limitations, though not critical here.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (expand and recent) thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all Jira projects accessible to the authenticated user'), with specific output details ('project keys, names, IDs, and basic metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_issue or get_sprints by focusing on projects rather than issues or sprints.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to discover available projects before creating issues or performing other operations.' This provides clear context for usage versus alternatives like get_issue or create_issue, though it doesn't name specific exclusions.

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