jira_list_transitions

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

No annotations provided, and the description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Behavioral traits are entirely absent.

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 short (two sentences plus an arg line) and technically concise, but it sacrifices substance. It lacks structure (e.g., no example, no breakdown of use case). Conciseness is positive, but the content is too minimal to be helpful.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain when this tool is applicable (e.g., listing transitions for an issue before performing a transition). The absence of context about the argument's intended use and the relation to sibling tools makes it nearly unusable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the single parameter 'arguments' is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not specify what keys (e.g., issue ID) are expected, leaving the agent to guess.

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 restates the tool name as 'Jira connector operation list_transitions' without specifying the scope (e.g., transitions for a specific issue) or distinguishing it from siblings like jira_transition_issue. It lacks a clear verb-resource pair beyond the name, making it tautological.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many Jira operations, but the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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