Get Worklog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description's lack of additional behavioral disclosure is acceptable. It mentions the return format ('JSON string representing the worklog entries') but does not disclose pagination, authentication, or other behaviors beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: two lines of purpose and an Args block. It front-loads the action and resource, includes parameter documentation, and has no wasted words. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It provides sufficient information for an agent to understand purpose and required input.

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 covers the single parameter 'issue_key' with a description and pattern. With 100% schema coverage, the description's additional 'Args' section provides no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get worklog entries for a Jira issue,' specifying the verb 'get', the resource 'worklog entries', and the scope 'for a Jira issue.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'jira_add_worklog'.

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 implies usage for retrieving worklogs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tool names suggest a counterpart 'jira_add_worklog' but no direct guidance is provided.

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