List State Transitions

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether transitions depend on user permissions or project state, or what 'available' means. It merely restates the title without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of any filler. It earns its place by stating the core function directly. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 has three required parameters and no output schema, yet the description omits any detail about parameter usage or return structure. It gives no indication of what 'state transitions' implies, how to specify the work item, or what the response will contain. The description is too sparse to be complete for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (user_key, project_key, work_item_id, work_item_type). The agent is left without any semantic understanding of what parameters to supply, making the tool nearly unusable for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'List available state transitions for a work item.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and the object it operates on. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like workflow_transition_state or workflow_smart_transition, though the basic purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this to preview transitions before executing one' or direct users to workflow_transition for performing a transition. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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