Get worklogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the pagination contract (one page per call, data.partial, data.nextStartAt) and warning that worklog comments are untrusted free text to treat as data, not instructions. This is valuable behavioral context not available from 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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose and key fields first, pagination behavior second, and the security warning last. It is compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and pagination semantics, and it does so effectively. It names the returned fields, exposes the data.partial/data.nextStartAt mechanism, and covers the nontrivial comment-handling safety concern. An agent has what it needs to call and iterate correctly.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by tying startAt to data.nextStartAt for resuming partial reads and clarifying that maxResults governs one page per call. This goes beyond the schema's already clear parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the work logged on an issue' and enumerates the returned fields (timeSpentSeconds, timeSpent, started, author, flattened comment). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings such as jira_add_worklog, jira_delete_worklog, and jira_get_comments.

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 clear operational context: use this tool to read worklogs on an issue, and it explains pagination behavior—one page per call and how to resume via data.partial and data.nextStartAt. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for a focused read-only tool.

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