List projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by noting that Cloud uses a paginated endpoint while Data Center uses a different endpoint, but it omits details like return format, whether Data Center honors pagination parameters, and any auth or visibility caveats.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds deployment-specific behavior that earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity, optional-pagination list tool, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is returned, the visibility scope, and deployment-specific endpoint behavior. Minor gaps remain around Data Center pagination behavior and the exact fields returned, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly from this description plus the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. The mention of 'paginated /project/search' at least connects startAt and maxResults to Cloud pagination, but the description does not explicitly describe either parameter or clarify how they behave in Data Center.

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 a specific operation and resource: 'List all Jira projects visible to the current user.' The 'all projects' scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_project, which targets a single project. The additional Cloud vs. Data Center endpoint detail reinforces the tool's exact behavior.

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 clearly implies the tool is for fetching the full set of projects visible to the user, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like get_project exist for single-project lookups, but that distinction is left to inference.

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