List Jira issue transitions

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that the transitions are 'currently available' for a specific issue, implying dynamic workflow-state dependence, but it does not describe permissions, output shape, or pagination.

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 filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema it does not explain what the returned transition objects contain, and it leaves the issueKey format implicit.

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?

There is one parameter, issueKey, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'for an issue' and does not explain the expected issue key format or constraints, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Return') and resource ('workflow transitions') scoped to an issue, so its purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling jira_transition_issue, which performs the actual transition, but the listing versus performing distinction is inferable.

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?

It does not state when to use this tool versus jira_transition_issue or other Jira tools. A reader can infer it is for discovering available transitions before transitioning, but no explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided.

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