jira_project_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('Returns YAML') and gives a CLI equivalent ('Mirrors `omni-dev atlassian jira project list`'), which adds useful behavioral context beyond a bare list operation. It does not mention side effects, but for a list tool this is largely sufficient.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. 'Returns YAML' and the CLI mirror reference are concise and informative, with no wasted words.

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 simple (one optional param, no output schema). The description states what it does and what it returns, which covers basic usage. The CLI mirror provides a reference for more detail. It could mention if archived projects are excluded or what YAML fields are included, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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% description coverage for the sole 'limit' parameter, explaining its meaning and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states 'List JIRA projects' with a specific verb and resource, making the tool's function immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_board_list by explicitly naming 'projects'.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and description—use it when you need a list of JIRA projects. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over other Jira list tools, nor does it provide alternatives or exclusions.

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