List worklogs on an issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known safe and possibly incomplete. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (id, author, time, started, comment), which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences with no extra words. The first sentence states the action and output, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required string parameter, read-only list operation), the description covers purpose, output fields, and usage guidance. Annotations cover safety and open-world behavior. No output schema is needed as fields are listed. Complete for the context.

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 sole parameter 'issue_key' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema, but baseline 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 it lists worklogs on a Jira issue and enumerates the fields returned (id, author, time, started, comment). The verb 'list' and resource 'worklogs on a Jira issue' are specific. The description also distinguishes from the sibling 'add_worklog' by implying usage for verification before adding.

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 explicitly says 'Useful to verify what was logged or to check for duplicates before adding more,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It implies a read-only nature and suggests using it before 'add_worklog'. No explicit exclusions, but adequate given the simple tool set.

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