jira_get_issue_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'Get' implying a read-only operation and describes the output format with examples, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or default filtering beyond what the schema already states.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and example output, the description is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool does and when to call it. It could be more explicit about usage versus siblings, but that is not essential for this straightforward getter.

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?

Both parameters have good descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. The example key 'IDS-10194' is already present in the schema's parameter description.

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' with a clear resource 'workflow transitions for a JIRA issue' and provides examples of output (Open -> In Progress). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as jira_get_issue or jira_get_issue_comments.

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 use when needing to see possible status changes for an issue, with example transitions provided. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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