get_transitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get available transitions', which essentially restates the tool name. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what a transition is, or what the response contains. Minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but slightly under-specified, earning a high but not perfect score.

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 with only one parameter, and the schema communicates the required input. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description does not explain the meaning of 'transitions' or the nature of the return value. Adequate for a minimal tool but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'issueKey' and zero description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the low schema coverage requires compensation that is absent.

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 'Get available transitions for an issue' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clear resource ('available transitions') and object (an issue). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'transition_issue' by indicating it's a retrieval rather than an action.

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 by the verb 'Get' and the resource 'transitions', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transition_issue' or 'get_issue'. The distinction is inferable but not stated.

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