List Work Logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral details: default to current date, pagination control and page reporting, error payload structure with common HTTP statuses, and project_id defaulting to config. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of runtime behavior.

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 long but well-structured and information-dense. Every sentence contributes useful context (purpose, filtering, defaults, pagination, safety, errors, API reference). It could be slightly tighter, but no sentence is wasted, and the front-loaded first sentence delivers the core purpose immediately.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, list operation), the description covers all essential aspects: return format (JSON array), pagination behavior, error handling, default project_id, filtering approach, and official API reference. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the combined use of log_date/start_date/end_date, pointing to filtering documentation, clarifying that page/per_page control pagination with a remaining-pages count, and noting that project_id defaults to a configured value. These enrich the schema 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 clearly states the tool 'Returns all Work Logs for the current date' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes its role for discovery and ID lookup before calling other tools, setting it apart from related work log tools.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use it ('to discover work logs or to look up the id... before calling a tool that needs it') and explains default date behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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