list_transitions

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a listing tool, so the description does not contradict the annotations. It adds no behavioral detail beyond that — no note that results are scoped to one issue, that transitions may be permission-filtered, or that the output is a candidate set rather than a mutation.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though terseness here reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.

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 simple (one param, output schema present, read-only), so the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. It omits the workflow relationship with execute_transition, which is the main contextual gap for an agent deciding what to do with the returned transitions.

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% for the single required issue_id parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. 'для задачи' only loosely implies the parameter identifies an issue; no format, source, or identifier convention is given.

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 and resource ('get available status transitions for an issue'), which is clearly distinguishable in intent from utilities like get_statuses. However, it never names its natural sibling execute_transition, which performs the transition this tool enumerates, so the agent must infer the pairing.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The only routing signal is the verb 'get' versus 'execute' in the sibling name, which the description does not reinforce or explain.

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