get_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is adequate for a simple getter. But it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or any other behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, error conditions). For a low-risk read operation this is minimally sufficient, but it adds no extra disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and a practical use case. There is zero waste; every word adds value.

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?

Given the single well-documented parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers essentials. It even relates to the transition_issue workflow. It could go further by stating that transitions are the input for transition_issue, but the current phrasing largely suffices.

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%—the only parameter, issueKey, is fully documented with an example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available status transitions for an issue'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like transition_issue (which performs a transition) and get_issue (which retrieves issue details). The purpose is immediately understood.

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 phrase 'useful before transitioning' provides clear context on when to call this tool—prior to invoking transition_issue. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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