Get available transitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the response shape (names, target statuses, required fields) and the fact that results are scoped to 'currently available' transitions, though it says nothing about error behavior for invalid issue keys or cross-site lookup.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first defines the result set, the second routes to the consuming sibling tool. Front-loaded with the primary noun phrase so the agent can stop reading early if the purpose is all it needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and the prerequisite for jira_transition_issue is stated. Minor residual gap: multi-site ambiguity is left entirely to the schema's 'site' parameter documentation rather than being flagged in the description for a tool that is inherently site-scoped.

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%, including a clear explanation of the optional 'site' parameter (cloud id, site name, or URL) and the issueKey format, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing about either parameter and adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names a specific resource (workflow transitions) with the scope qualifier 'currently available for an issue', and enumerates what comes back (name, target status, required fields). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling jira_transition_issue, which performs the transition rather than listing it.

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 states the sequencing rule — call this before jira_transition_issue — and the condition that triggers it ('if unsure of the names'). The alternative tool is named directly, so the agent needs no inference to choose.

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