Get Issue Worklogs

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

The description adds minimal value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation; it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The description is consistent with the annotation (no contradiction).

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 action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part is essential.

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 parameter set (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines, which would improve completeness for a retrieval 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%, and the parameter 'issue_ids' already has a clear schema description with format examples. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so 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 the action ('Get'), resource ('worklogs'), and scope ('by issue id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like issue_add_worklog, issue_delete_worklog, and issue_update_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., issue_add_worklog, issue_update_worklog). No exclusions or context for usage.

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