Get Available Transitions

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. It adds a small nuance with 'currently available,' indicating dynamic results based on issue status, but does not state read-only nature, permissions, or return format. Lacks the context needed for an agent to understand side effects or prerequisites.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the API endpoint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the returned transitions contain or how to use them with the sibling tool 'transition_issue', which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 100% as the only parameter 'issueKey' has a clear description and example. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 lists workflow transitions for an issue, with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('workflow transitions... for an issue'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'transition_issue' by focusing on retrieving available transitions rather than performing one.

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 implies usage in a workflow context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transition_issue' or 'get_issue'. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the title and sibling tool names.

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