get_transitions

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

With no annotations and no descriptive detail, the description leaves all behavioral traits undisclosed. It does not mention whether operations are read-only, what conditions may hide transitions, or what response behavior to expect.

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 extremely brief but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not add information beyond the name, so it fails to earn 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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the two-word description is far from sufficient. An agent has no context about return values, transition availability, or how to distinguish this from transition-related siblings.

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%, so the parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not go further.

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 'Get transitions' simply restates the tool name and does not specify what kind of transitions (e.g., issue workflow transitions) or how this differs from siblings like do_transition. It is a tautology rather than an informative definition.

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?

No guidance is given for when to call this tool versus alternatives such as do_transition or get_statuses. The description provides zero context about prerequisites or use cases.

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