get_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation (getting transitions) and does not claim destructive behavior. However, it lacks detail such as whether it returns all possible transitions or only those allowed for the current user, and whether it respects JIRA workflow conditions like permissions or required fields.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant or irrelevant information, earning its place.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has a single parameter, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., list of transition names, IDs, and to-statuses) and whether it requires specific permissions. The current description is too minimal for an agent to use the tool effectively without guessing the return format.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'issueKey' with an example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify format constraints or how the issueKey relates to the project.

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 states the tool gets available status transitions for a JIRA issue, using the specific verb '取得します' (retrieve) and resource 'ステータス遷移' (status transitions). It somewhat distinguishes from siblings like transition_issue, which performs the transition, and get_issue, which gets issue details. However, it could be more explicit that this is a lookup of possible next states, not a history.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include transition_issue (which would depend on knowing valid transitions) and search_issues, but the description does not clarify that this tool is a prerequisite for transition_issue or that it is read-only. An agent would benefit from knowing to call this before transition_issue.

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