get_transitions

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get available status transitions' without mentioning that this is a read-only operation, whether permissions are needed, or what the response structure looks like. This is minimal and lacks depth beyond the tool name.

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, immediately understandable sentence with no fluff or unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of transitions with fields). While the purpose is clear, the lack of any return structure or usage context makes it minimally complete but with noticeable gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the sole parameter 'issueKey'. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, so it does not improve on the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available status transitions for an issue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'transition_issue' and 'bulk_transition_issues' which perform transitions. It concisely states the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies it is for viewing possible transitions before executing one, but the description does not mention this or any exclusions, making usage guidance only implied rather than stated.

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