tempo_get_worklog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a small amount of behavioral context by clarifying this returns a single record rather than a collection, but it does not go further (e.g., error behavior, response format). No contradiction exists.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action, resource, and lookup criterion are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 lookup tool with 100% schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description plus schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The view parameter's detailed response-shape explanation lives in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though a brief mention of the view option in the description would make it even more self-contained.

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 id and view parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond repeating 'id', which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), identifies the exact resource ('single Tempo worklog'), and specifies the lookup key ('by its id'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many list-oriented siblings like tempo_get_worklogs and tempo_get_worklogs_by_project.

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 that this tool is appropriate when you already have a worklog id, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternative retrieval tools or enumerates any exclusions. Usage context is present but only by inference.

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