tempo_get_worklogs

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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds non-obvious behavioral context the schema cannot: the returned text is third-party and untrusted, and must be treated as data rather than instructions. That prompt-injection warning is a genuine value-add beyond annotations, though it says nothing about pagination behavior or rate 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?

Roughly two sentences of substance, front-loaded with the purpose and closing with the security caveat; no filler or repetition. Slightly more could be trimmed, but every clause carries 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 read-only, fully-annotated, zero-required-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and the untrusted-content hazard. The main omission is routing context relative to the many worklog siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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%, including a detailed 'view' description, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description only restates a few filter categories (project, issue, date range) without adding format or interaction semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Retrieve a list of Tempo worklogs') and names the filter surface (project, issue, date range, more). However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as tempo_search_worklogs, tempo_get_worklog, or the tempo_get_worklogs_by_* family, leaving the agent to guess which entry point to use.

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?

There is an implied usage ('matching the given search parameters', 'supports filtering by project, issue, date range') but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With a dozen sibling worklog-retrieval tools, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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