jira_get_worklog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns a JSON string, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, potential authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a 'get' tool, the lack of explicit read-only indication reduces transparency.

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 very concise, with two main sentences and separate lines for args and returns. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, but the format includes redundant information (e.g., 'args' and 'returns' are already implied by schema and output schema). Still, it is 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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, output schema exists), the description provides the essential information. However, it lacks examples, notes on permissions, or information about pagination or worklog limits. It is adequate but not fully complete for all scenarios.

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%, and the parameter description in the schema is clear. The description's mention of 'issue_key: Jira issue key' adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Get worklog entries for a Jira issue', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_add_worklog by focusing on retrieval. The inclusion of 'for a Jira issue' adds context beyond the tool name, avoiding tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jira_add_worklog. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The description simply states what it does without usage context.

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