jira_get_transitions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that transitions are scoped to the given issue and are 'currently available' (state-dependent), which is useful context, but does not describe return format, ordering, or whether the key must exist.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and includes the essential scoping concept. No wasted words.

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?

Output schema is present, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the annotations cover read-only behavior. However, for a tool whose sibling jira_transition_issue performs the mutation, the description is thin on when to use which, leaving a small gap for an agent navigating this cluster.

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% and the single parameter 'key' has a clear description with a pattern (issue key, e.g. PROJ-123). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate for a 1-param tool with full schema coverage.

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 (List) and resource (transitions available for an issue), making the purpose clear. Sibling tool jira_transition_issue (which performs a transition) is implicitly distinguished by 'List ... available', but the description never names that sibling or explicitly distinguishes listing vs. executing.

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 for this issue' implies the tool is a discovery step before calling jira_transition_issue, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With output schema present, the flow is inferable but not stated.

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