Jira 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. It does disclose that the transitions are 'currently available', implying they depend on the issue's current state, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any other behaviors like error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a read-only operation, the lack of destructive side effects is implied but not explicitly stated, which is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 a single, focused sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation, with no filler or redundant information. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple, and an output schema exists to define return values, so the description need not explain them. However, the description omits critical context about the 'key' parameter, which is undocumented in the schema. Additionally, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'transition' (e.g., status changes) or any prerequisites. While the core purpose is clear, the missing parameter semantics makes the tool incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the single parameter 'key'. It only says 'for an issue', which indirectly suggests 'key' is the issue key, but this is not explicit. The agent must guess that 'key' refers to the issue identifier (e.g., 'PROJ-123'). The description fails to clarify the parameter format or expected values, which is a critical gap given the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workflow transitions') with scope ('for an issue'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like jira_transition_issue (which performs a transition) and jira_get_issue (which retrieves issue details). An agent can accurately identify this tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before jira_transition_issue to discover valid transitions, nor does it contrast with jira_update_issue or jira_get_issue. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'List', leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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