Get Worklog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them – no note on whether all entries are returned or paginated, no auth or permission expectations, no mention of response shape despite worklogs typically being a list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is concise and readable, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a list-returning tool the description omits whether results are paginated or truncated and what an empty worklog looks like, leaving gaps an agent may need.

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 single required issue_key that includes a format pattern and examples, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('worklog entries') scoped to a Jira issue, which is enough to tell it apart from the mutating sibling jira_add_worklog. It never names that sibling or any other alternative, so differentiation is by name only.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to jira_add_worklog, with no stated condition for choosing between them.

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