get_project_worklog_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond stating it returns a summary. Furthermore, it includes 'workspace_slug' in the Args list which is not present in the input schema, creating confusion about the actual required parameters.

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 short but includes unnecessary detail about arguments that are not reflected in the schema, making it slightly misleading. It could be improved by aligning with the actual schema and removing extraneous information.

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 description mentions a return type (list of ProjectWorklogSummary objects), which is useful. However, the inconsistency between described args and schema reduces completeness. With only one required parameter and an output schema available (implied), the description is mostly adequate but slightly flawed.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains project_id as 'UUID of the project', which adds basic context. However, it also mentions workspace_slug which is not in the schema, and provides no explanation for its usage or why it appears in the Args but not the required parameters.

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 states 'Get work log summary for a project', clearly specifying the verb (Get), resource (work log summary), and scope (project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_logs which return individual logs, while this returns a summary.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_work_logs. The description simply states what it does and lists arguments, but offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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