jira_get_transitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The GET method clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not mention what the response contains, whether transitions include ids/names, or how the result relates to jira_transition_issue. Basic safety is clear, but deeper behavior is not disclosed.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the exact endpoint. Every word contributes information, and there is no redundancy or 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin for full self-sufficiency. It omits what the returned transitions look like, how the issueIdOrKey should be formatted, and how this tool connects to jira_transition_issue. An agent would likely understand the tool's intent but would need to infer important invocation details.

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 has only issueIdOrKey, and the description provides no additional meaning, examples, or format guidance. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but no concrete detail such as 'PROJ-123' is given.

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 resource and action: it returns available transitions for a Jira issue, and the included GET endpoint confirms it is a read operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling jira_transition_issue, though the name and wording make that distinction easy to infer.

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 used to fetch valid transitions before performing a transition, especially with the sibling jira_transition_issue present. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool rather than alternatives, nor does it mention any workflow or prerequisites.

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