get_total_worklogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format might be (e.g., time units, aggregation method). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'total logged time' entails (e.g., summed worklogs, time range, units) or the return structure, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'project_id' parameter well-documented as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('total logged time for a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue_worklogs' or 'get_projects', which could also involve retrieving work-related data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it aggregates data from other tools or if it's for summary purposes only. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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