jira_get_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the function ('Get available status transitions') without disclosing whether it is read-only, any permission requirements, or side effects. This adds little beyond the tool name.

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 concise at two sentences, but the second sentence ('Use this to see...') is somewhat redundant with the first, though it does serve as a usage guideline. Minor redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is adequate: it clearly states the purpose and usage. It does not mention output format or permission restrictions, but the simplicity and schema coverage keep it complete enough for selection and invocation.

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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter issueKey with a description and example, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond associating the parameter with an issue, so the baseline of 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's function: 'Get available status transitions for an issue.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'status transitions' are specific, and the description naturally distinguishes this from sibling tools like jira_transition_issue (which performs the transition) and jira_get_issue_history (which shows history).

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 provides explicit usage context with 'Use this to see what statuses an issue can be moved to,' which tells the agent when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling tool names imply the distinction.

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