jira_get_transitions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'List' and 'currently available' convey a read-only behavior and the distinction from historical transitions, but the description does not disclose response format, permission requirements, or edge cases like empty transition lists. It gives moderate behavioral context beyond the name.

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. Every word contributes meaning, and it clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 one clearly defined parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient purpose and scope. It lacks broader usage guidance or behavioral details, but the low complexity of the tool makes the description reasonably complete for selection.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explicitly explain the issueKey parameter. However, the parameter name is self-descriptive and the schema pattern (`^[A-Z][A-Z0-9_]*-\d+$`) fully specifies the expected format. The description's reference to 'a Jira issue' implicitly connects the parameter, but no additional semantic value is added beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('status transitions currently available for a Jira issue'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_changelog (historical changes) and jira_get_issue (current status), and the 'currently available' qualifier adds valuable precision.

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 phrase 'currently available' implies the tool should be used to inspect actionable workflow transitions for a given issue, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as jira_get_changelog or jira_get_issue. No direct exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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