Get Issue Worklogs

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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses automatic pagination ('every paginated worklog') and explains the raw ISO 8601 duration format with the PnW convention. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds an essential formatting nuance. Every word 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?

For a read-only tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, pagination, filtering, and duration format. The timezone parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable. It is not exhaustive about edge cases, but complete enough 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds a general note about filtering by work start date, which maps to start_date_from/to but does not add detail beyond the schema.

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 that the tool retrieves worklogs for Yandex Tracker issues, with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'worklog'. It also mentions pagination and optional date filtering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_get_comments or issue_get_links.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need worklogs for issues), but it does not explicitly contrast it with related issue getters or worklog mutation tools like issue_add_worklog. It provides clear context without exclusions, earning a 4.

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