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

The description states it deletes a worklog but does not disclose behavioral traits like permanence, permissions required, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or confirmation steps. With no annotations provided, the description should carry the burden of transparency but fails to do so adequately.

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 a single sentence without any extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and method, meeting conciseness and front-loading expectations.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks details on what happens after deletion (e.g., success response) and any potential consequences, which are important for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the worklogId parameter as 'UUID of the work log to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond verifying the use of ID, so a baseline score of 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 the action ('Delete') and the resource ('work log entry') using the identifier method ('by its ID'). It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_worklogs, get_worklog, log_time, update_worklog, and summarize_time, which perform different 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether the worklog must first exist or if there are prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or potential alternatives for non-destructive actions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool retrieves work logs, with no mention of authentication, rate limits, error handling, or behavior when the issue ID is invalid.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient but could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool with low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context that would help an agent anticipate outcomes or prerequisites.

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 100%, and the input schema already describes the parameter (externalItemId) with an example. The description adds no further meaning or context for the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 action (get), resource (all work logs), and scope (for a specific Jira issue ID). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_worklogs', which may have a similar purpose.

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 like list_worklogs or log_time. The context signals show five siblings, but the description does not address usage context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior via cursor but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or permissions. For a list operation, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded with the key verb and resource, then adds filtering and pagination details. Every sentence serves a purpose with no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should help infer the response structure. It mentions pagination and filtering but does not describe the work log fields returned or the pagination format (e.g., edges, nodes). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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% with each parameter described (cursor, assigneeId, externalItemId). The description adds that filtering is by 'assignee or Jira issue,' which aligns with the parameters but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'List' with 'work logs from 7pace,' clearly identifying the resource and action. It mentions filtering by assignee or Jira issue, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_worklog (single) and log_time (create).

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 states it supports filtering and pagination, implying usage for listing multiple logs with optional filters. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g., for a single log use get_worklog), but the sibling context makes it clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight. It does not explain side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), required permissions, error handling, or what happens if the Jira issue ID is invalid. Only basic operation is stated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It omits essential context such as required authentication scopes, time zone handling for startedAt, and response format. A novice user would have insufficient guidance to use it 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 100%, so the tool description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'Duration in minutes' reinforces the unit but does not add new semantic value.

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 action ('Create'), the resource ('new work log entry'), and the context ('in 7pace for a Jira issue'). It also specifies the unit of duration ('Duration in minutes'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_worklogs or get_worklog.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_worklog or summarize_time. The purpose is implied by the verb 'Create', but the description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for use.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'fetch all work logs,' indicating a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Minimal but accurate.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the core action, containing no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple tool (2 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description suffices by specifying the grouping by Jira issue. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the output format (e.g., fields returned), but overall adequate.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description restates 'optional assignee/issue filter' without adding new syntax or constraints beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 fetches work logs and summarizes total time grouped by Jira issue, with optional filters. The verb 'summarize' and resource 'total time' distinguish it from sibling tools like list_worklogs or get_worklog.

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 usage for aggregated time reporting with optional filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like list_worklogs or log_time. Missing 'when not to use' or comparison phrases.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'update' without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites all fields, offers partial updates, or requires specific permissions. No side effects or validation details are mentioned.

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 single-sentence description is concise and to the point, avoiding unnecessary words. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain update behavior (e.g., whether all fields must be provided) or what the tool returns. More context is needed for an effective mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, thus baseline score of 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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing work log entry', with identification by ID. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_worklogs, get_worklog, delete_worklog, and log_time.

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 usage for modifying existing worklogs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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