Get transitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description doesn't contradict them. The description adds valuable behavioral context: transition ids are workflow-specific and change, status cannot be set through an update, and the list must be fetched fresh. A slight gap is not describing the exact output shape, but with no output schema, the description still gives the key fields.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and return fields; the second gives the critical prerequisite and constraint; the third is a direct, actionable instruction. No filler or repetition.

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, two-parameter list call, the description is nearly complete. It explains why the call exists, what to do with it, and what fields are returned. It doesn't describe pagination or the exact response structure, but for a transitions list that is a minor gap, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 both parameters (issue, profile) are already documented. The description adds the semantic point that the 'issue' must be read in its current state to see current status, but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('workflow transitions'), and a precise scope ('from this issue's CURRENT status'), with details on what is returned (id, name, target status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like jira_get_issue or jira_update_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?

Explicitly says it is 'Required before jira_transition_issue', warns not to reuse a remembered transition id, and tells the agent to read the list immediately before transitioning. This is strong when-to-use guidance with a clear alternative (jira_transition_issue).

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