tempo_get_worklogs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation, and the description matches that by saying 'Retrieve a list.' It adds minimal behavioral context by naming supported filter dimensions, but it does not disclose behavior such as the default limit, offset behavior, or what happens when all parameters are omitted. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two short sentences with the main action front-loaded and no irrelevant content. It is concise, though the second sentence is slightly redundant with 'search parameters' and the phrase 'and more' is vague.

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?

Given the rich input schema and read-only annotation, the description is minimally sufficient for invoking the tool, but it leaves important context gaps. It does not clarify how this generic list tool differs from the many sibling worklog-list tools, nor does it describe expected behavior with no filters, pagination defaults, or response characteristics in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, every parameter already has an explanatory description. The tool description only paraphrases a few parameter concepts (project, issue, date range) without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Retrieve a list') and resource ('Tempo worklogs'), then names the main filtering dimensions. It is not a tautology and does not confuse it with a single-item fetch, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the many sibling worklog-list tools such as tempo_search_worklogs or 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 phrase 'Supports filtering by project, issue, date range, and more' implies this tool is for flexible multi-dimensional searches, so a capable agent can infer when to use it. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, even though there are heavily overlapping siblings like get_worklogs_by_project, get_worklogs_by_issue, and search_worklogs.

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