get_worklogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' clearly indicates a non-mutating read operation, but the description does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format, defaults, pagination, or any prerequisites. It is minimal but not misleading.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource before naming the optional filters. Every word is informative, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate for tool selection but leaves operational details like return value shape, limit handling, and date-range constraints mostly to the schema. It is complete enough for a simple read tool, but not richly contextual.

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 description coverage is 80%, so most parameters already have detailed schema documentation. The description adds a useful high-level grouping of parameters into filters (issue key, author, date range) but does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a concrete resource ('Tempo worklogs') and explicitly lists the optional filter dimensions (issue key, author account ID, date range). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from the sibling post/delete operations.

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 the tool is for retrieving worklogs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like post_worklog or delete_worklog. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions, though the sibling names make the distinction somewhat obvious.

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