jira_get_transitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: permission-dependent emptiness and the mismatch between transition names and destination status names — a caveat that prevents real misuse.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the read-only scope and output shape front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, name/status disambiguation and empty-result meaning. The only omission is any mention of the required issueKey argument.

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% and the description never mentions issueKey, its format, or that it is required. The regex pattern in the schema partially self-documents the expected key shape, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list currently available workflow transitions for a Jira issue') and even specifies the return shape (IDs and names). It signals read-only scope, which separates it from jira_transition_issue, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before jira_transition_issue, but the description never says so. The one explicit conditional ('empty list means no transitions are available to the current user') is about interpreting results, not about when to choose this tool.

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