jira_get_transitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Retrieves' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description goes further by explaining what data is returned (transitions and transitionId) and giving examples. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify the issue,' but the phrasing is unambiguous enough for a safe read tool.

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 two sentences of high-value content plus an official API link. It starts with the verb and resource, then explains the practical use, all without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description explains the purpose, the nature of the returned data (list of transitions with transitionIds), and why it is needed (to transition an issue). It also provides an official API link for deeper details, making it complete for effective use.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'issueIdOrKey'. The description only references 'a specific Jira issue' without adding new semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema fully explains the parameter, the description adds no significant extra meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' with a specific resource: 'the list of transitions (status changes) available for a specific Jira issue.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'jira_transition_issue' by focusing on reading available transitions rather than performing the transition.

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 description states 'This is crucial for discovering what workflow stages... and obtaining the correct transitionId... to transition it,' which clearly implies when to use this tool (before transitioning an issue). It doesn't explicitly name 'jira_transition_issue' as the alternative, but the use case and sibling list make it unmistakable. However, it lacks explicit 'do not use when' guidance.

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