get_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get available transitions' strongly implies a safe read with no side effects, which is the key behavioral fact, but it never states auth requirements, whether results are workspace-scoped, or what happens with an invalid key. Return format is covered by the output schema.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is tight with no filler. The Args section partially duplicates the schema, but it is short enough that it does not hurt readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Both parameters are addressed. What is missing is the workflow context: how this relates to transition_ticket and what the workspace parameter scopes. Adequate but with clear gaps for a workflow-lookup tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters and gives a concrete key format example ('CPD-123') and flags workspace as optional, which is more than the schema offers. However it never explains what workspace resolves or what happens if it is omitted, leaving real ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get available status workflow transitions for a ticket.' The scope (status workflow transitions for a given ticket) is clear and distinguishes it from get_ticket, though the sibling transition_ticket (the write counterpart) is never named or contrasted.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the read-only lookup to call before transition_ticket, but the description never says when to use it, nor when to prefer transition_ticket. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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