jira_list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that listing is scoped to PAT visibility. For a simple read tool, this is adequate. Could mention if there is pagination or output limits, but acceptable.

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 efficient sentences. First sentence states action and scope; second sentence provides context for when to use. No redundant 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 parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description fully informs the agent about the tool's function and application. No gaps remain.

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?

No parameters; baseline is 4. Description adds value by explaining the output (list of projects visible to PAT) and its utility, compensating for lack of input schema details.

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?

Clearly states verb 'List', resource 'Jira projects', and scope 'visible to the PAT'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (all issue/attachment related). Provides practical use cases: validating access and choosing a default project.

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?

Implicitly guides usage by stating usefulness for validating access and choosing a default project, suggesting it should be used before other operations. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but no sibling tool directly competes.

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