get_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only lookup via '조회합니다' and clarifies that the result contains transition IDs for later use with transition_issue. It does not mention auth requirements or empty-list edge cases, but these are minor for a simple read-only list tool.

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 short sentences, each with a clear job: first states purpose, second states when to use it. There is no filler or redundancy, and the key operational detail is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description says enough: it returns a list of possible transitions and tells the agent to extract transition IDs before transitioning. It could add required-permission or empty-list notes, but those are not essential for selecting and calling this tool correctly.

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%: the only parameter, issueIdOrKey, is already described as the issue ID or key. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline for parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action (retrieve a list of possible status transitions) and a specific resource (an issue), and explicitly connects the output to transition IDs used with transition_issue. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_issue or transition_issue.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool before calling transition_issue to confirm transition IDs, which is a direct usage rule. It also implicitly defines transition_issue as the tool that performs the actual transition, so the agent knows this tool is for lookup only.

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