List Tracker org-wide worklog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that filters are optional and the endpoint shape; it says nothing about result size, pagination, or org-wide scope limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and endpoint, with zero filler. The sibling relationship is placed second where it belongs.

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 three-optional-param list tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is adequate, but it leaves the worklog_search vs worklog_list vs this tool decision under-specified, which matters given the dense tracker_worklog_* sibling cluster.

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 three parameters (created_by, created_from, created_to) are already fully documented with formats and defaults. The description merely names 'author, creation time' as filter categories, adding no syntax or constraint details 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Org-wide worklog entries'), plus the backing endpoint GET /worklog, and names the sibling it relates to (worklog_search). It distinguishes itself from siblings, though 'lighter sibling' leaves the exact scope boundary somewhat vague.

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?

Notes that 'every filter is optional' and that this is a lighter alternative to worklog_search, which implies broad unfiltered listing. However it never states when to pick this tool over worklog_search or worklog_list, so the agent must infer the choice.

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