jira_get_transitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly identifies the tool as a read operation, it does not disclose any edge cases (e.g., invalid issue key, permissions required) or behavior beyond the basic function. For a simple get operation, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 sentence that conveys the essential purpose and includes an example for clarity. No unnecessary words 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a list of transition names and IDs). It does not describe the return format or structure, leaving the agent to infer. For a tool with minimal complexity, this is a notable gap.

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 100% for the single parameter 'issue_key'. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's label. Since coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action (Get), the resource (workflow transitions), and the target (a Jira issue). It provides examples of transitions ('In Progress', 'Done') to clarify the concept. This distinguishes it well from siblings like jira_transition_issue which performs the transition.

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 when an issue key is known and transitions are needed before performing a transition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_transition_issue, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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