jira_get_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It accurately states the action (list transitions) but does not disclose whether the list is filtered by user permissions, the output format, or error handling. The description is minimal but not misleading, and 'List' implies a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero wasteful words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is low complexity with one well-documented parameter. The description conveys the core purpose but could be enhanced by noting it returns only allowed transitions or that it is typically used before jira_transition_issue. Given no output schema, some return detail is missing, but the description is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with issueKey described as 'Issue key'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it relies on the schema to define the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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' with a clear resource 'available status transitions' and scope 'for an issue'. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tool jira_transition_issue, which performs a transition, and other issue-related tools.

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 retrieve transition options for a single issue, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to jira_transition_issue or mention when not to use it, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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