jira_get_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns transitions, with no mention of read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes an illustrative example. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input. However, it omits any description of the output format or structure, leaving a gap in completeness. A bit more detail on return value would improve it.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter issueKey with a description). The description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema; it provides an example but no further parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns available state transitions for an issue, with examples like 'In Progress' or 'Done'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools such as jira_transition_issue (which performs transitions) and jira_get_issue (which retrieves issue details).

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 indirectly implies usage for checking available transitions before moving an issue, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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