Get Issue Transitions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a list of available transitions, which is mildly informative but does not disclose additional behavior such as whether the list depends on user permissions or includes all possible transitions.

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 with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and includes the key detail about returning a list of available transitions.

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 simple read-only lookup tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the context needed to select and invoke the tool. No further behavioral or return-value details are necessary.

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 single parameter 'issue_id' is fully described in the schema with format examples, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not go beyond the schema but the schema is sufficient, warranting the baseline score.

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 gets possible status transitions for a Yandex Tracker issue, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'issue_execute_transition' by focusing on retrieval rather than execution.

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 implies the tool is useful for discovering available transitions before performing one, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like issue_execute_transition. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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