Get Transitions

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a safe read operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as dependency on issue status or permissions. The annotation already covers the read-only nature, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that earns its place. It is front-loaded and contains no redundancy or extra fluff.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does, and the output schema covers return values. No further context is needed for a tool of this complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage with a detailed description for issue_key, including pattern and example. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available status transitions') tied to a Jira issue. It clearly identifies this as a read-only retrieval operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_transition_issue that perform the actual 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 the tool is for fetching transition options before performing a transition, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling context suggests jira_transition_issue for performing transitions, but the description itself lacks this guidance.

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