a2atlassian

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm lack of side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it checks user permissions for the transitions it lists.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently structured with no redundant words. However, extreme brevity becomes a liability given the lack of schema documentation and annotations, leaving critical information gaps.

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?

While an output schema exists (reducing the need for return value description), the tool remains under-documented. With zero schema coverage, no annotations, and three parameters including an opaque 'format' option, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no parameter context. The 'format' parameter (with cryptic default 'toon') and the relationship between 'project' and 'issue_key' are left unexplained, failing to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available transitions') with clear scope ('for a Jira issue'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'jira_transition_issue', which likely performs state changes while this tool retrieves options.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that this retrieves transition metadata while 'jira_transition_issue' executes transitions, or that this should be called before attempting to transition an issue to validate available states.

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