get_issue_transitions

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It adds that target statuses are included in the output, but says nothing about ordering, availability rules, or whether transitions are permission-filtered. Useful but modest value on top of annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the chaining instruction second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a single-param read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a high level and how the result is used. It could say more about the shape of a transition entry, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Issue key or id'), so the schema fully carries this burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or key-vs-id guidance beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List workflow transitions available for the issue') and adds a scope detail (target statuses included), which is enough to tell it apart from execute_transition and bulk_transition_issues. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 second sentence explicitly names the consuming tool ('Use transition ids with execute_transition'), which effectively communicates the when-to-use context as a read step preceding execution. It stops short of stating exclusions or what to do if no transitions are available, so not a full 5.

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