list_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely restates the basic function without mentioning user-specific transitions, permission dependencies, or how the output relates to transition_issue. This misses an opportunity to add transparency beyond the obvious read-only nature of listing.

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 front-loads the action and resource. It is fully concise and contains no unnecessary words.

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 well-documented parameters and an output schema. However, the description does not connect to transition_issue or note that returned transition IDs are used for performing transitions. Without annotations, this leaves a minor gap, but it is minimally adequate.

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 already contains full descriptions for both parameters (issue_key and output_format), so the description adds no extra semantic value. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 the tool lists available status transitions for an issue. It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (status transitions), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like transition_issue (which executes a transition) and list_statuses (which lists all statuses).

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 usage context—checking which transitions are available for a specific issue before performing one. It provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, which is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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