Get issue transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately states the operation, but does not explicitly say it is read-only, that results depend on the issue's current status or workflow, or mention permission/visibility constraints. The term 'available' hints at context-dependence but does not elaborate.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 simple one-parameter list operation, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of any note about how transitions depend on the issue's current status or workflow, and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape, but the operation's simplicity keeps this from being a major deficiency.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter, issueKey, including an example format. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', with a clear resource, 'workflow transitions available for an issue.' It clearly distinguishes this read/list operation from the sibling action tool transition_issue, which performs a transition rather than listing available ones.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool rather than transition_issue or other issue-related tools. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'available,' but no note says to call this before transitioning an issue or to discover valid transition IDs.

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