listJiraIssueWorklogs

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 fully covered. The description adds one non-annotation trait, that results are paginated, but says nothing about ordering, page size defaults, or what happens when the issue has no worklogs.

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 no wasted words, and the pagination trait is stated up front. It is arguably too terse for a 5-parameter tool, but nothing is padded.

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 and 40% parameter coverage, the description should carry more weight for a tool whose paging fields and time-window filters are undocumented. The read-only annotations cover the risk profile, but an agent gets no help on how to page or filter 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 description coverage is only 40%: startedAfter and startedBefore carry 'Epoch millis', while issueIdOrKey, startAt and maxResults are bare. The word 'Paginated' hints that startAt/maxResults exist but the description never explains their semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb+resource (list worklogs / logged time) and scopes it to a Jira work item, with a useful gloss clarifying that 'worklogs' means logged time. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling addOrEditJiraIssueWorklog, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never names an alternative such as addOrEditJiraIssueWorklog or listJiraIssueComments for adjacent read needs. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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