tempo_get_work_attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the call is unfiltered ('all') and scopes the resource to worklog custom fields; it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing, nor about auth or result size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The resource and its clarifying gloss are packed into one clause; nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only, no-required-param enumeration tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The one gap is that it doesn't reconcile 'all' with the presence of limit/offset, leaving pagination semantics to inference.

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%, with the enum 'view' documented in unusually rich detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

Specific verb (Retrieve) plus resource (Tempo work attributes) and a clarifying parenthetical that they are custom fields on worklogs. That distinguishes it from the many worklog-related siblings without needing to name them explicitly, though it never states how it differs from e.g. tempo_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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. 'Retrieve all' implies an unfiltered enumeration, but the agent is left to infer that this is the lookup for valid custom-field definitions versus a worklog read.

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