jira_get_transitions

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

The description states 'Retrieves', which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds useful context about discovering possible transitions, though no further behavioral details are needed given the annotations cover safety.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage guidance without any filler.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, it could mention that the output is a list of transitions with IDs and names, though not strictly required.

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% with a single parameter issueKey already described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieves all available workflow transitions for a Jira issue' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning jira_transition_issue as a related tool.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to discover which status changes are possible for an issue before calling jira_transition_issue.' This tells the agent when to use it and identifies the sibling to use afterward.

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