List Jira 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 of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get Jira projects' with no information about return format, pagination, authentication, or side effects. This is completely insufficient for a tool that may have nuances in listing projects.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, making it front-loaded and easy to read. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it is minimal. It earns a 4 for efficiency, not a 5 because it offers no structural detail or helpful breakdown.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the response looks like or any important behavior. It does neither, leaving the agent uncertain about the return shape (e.g., array of project objects) or possible limits. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a tool with no other documentation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not detract from it.

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 'Get Jira projects' clearly states the action (get) and resource (Jira projects), matching the title 'List Jira Projects.' It is distinguishable from sibling tools like jira_search or jira_get_issue, which focus on issues rather than projects. However, it lacks any qualifiers like 'all' or 'summary,' so it is not fully specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_search or jira_get_issue. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The user is left to infer that this is for listing projects, but no explicit comparison to sibling tools is given.

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