jtk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists actions but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether 'create' requires admin permissions, if operations are read-only or mutating, rate limits, error handling, or what 'list_statuses' returns. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a single sentence efficiently, though it could be more structured by separating purpose from action list. No wasted words, but could benefit from better organization.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a multi-action tool with 9 parameters. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, authentication needs, or how actions differ in behavior. For a tool that includes 'create' (a mutation), more context is needed.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing action types but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline is 3 since the schema does heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'List and get Jira project details and statuses' with specific actions listed. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like manage_issues or manage_users by focusing on projects. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from all siblings (e.g., manage_boards might also relate to 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or when to choose this over other project-related tools. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is the primary tool for project operations versus manage_boards or manage_versions.

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