jira_get_transitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read and the description frames it as a discovery step, which is useful, but it says nothing about permission requirements or the shape/cost of the returned data (e.g. whether transition IDs are included, pagination). Adequate but not rich.

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 with zero waste; the purpose leads and the routing advice follows immediately.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and downstream use adequately. The only gap is that the agent doesn't know what a 'transition' entry contains (name vs. id), which matters for wiring the result into jira_transition_issue.

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 100% for the single issueIdOrKey parameter, including format examples ('PROJ-123'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or constraint beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb + resource + scope ('List all available workflow transitions for a Jira issue'), which is precisely distinguishable from the sibling jira_transition_issue that performs the transition rather than enumerating them.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use this to discover valid transition names before calling jira_transition_issue.' This tells the agent both when to call it and which sibling to call afterward, leaving nothing to inference.

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