tempo_get_worklog

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value with a prompt-injection warning that returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data. It omits error behavior for a nonexistent id and any note on the openWorldHint implication, keeping it below 5.

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 operation and followed by the security caveat. Neither sentence is redundant with the schema or annotations, so 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 single-record read with no output schema and annotations already declaring the read-only, open-world profile, the definition covers the essentials and adds the untrusted-content caveat. Minor gaps remain around not-found/error behavior and routing when an id is unavailable.

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 fully documents both id and the compact/full view enum, including what compact strips and why no projection exists. The description adds nothing beyond restating "by its id," so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ("Retrieve a single Tempo worklog") plus the lookup key ("by its id"), which cleanly separates it from the plural siblings tempo_get_worklogs and tempo_get_worklogs_by_issue/user/etc. It does not name any of those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "by its id" implies you must already hold a worklog id, which is the only usage signal present. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what to do when you only have an issue/user/date filter, and no pointer to tempo_search_worklogs or the by-issue/by-user siblings for that case.

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