tempo_get_worklogs_by_account

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so this is known as a safe read operation. The description adds the account-key association context. It does not describe pagination behavior, default limit implications, or the response shape. The 'view' parameter description is unusually detailed about response shape, which adds some behavioral transparency, but the main description is thin. 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 primary description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the core behavior. The schema's 'view' description is lengthy but earns its place with critical disambiguation. No fluff or repetition.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, but rich schema descriptions, the description is mostly complete. Missing: no explicit statement about defaults (e.g., limit default 50), no guidance on how 'from'/'to' interact with 'updatedFrom', and no mention of what happens if accountKey has no worklogs. But the schema carries much of the weight.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. However, the description adds value through the 'view' parameter's unusually explicit explanation of what 'compact' vs 'full' mean, and the 'accountKey' example. The main description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions are rich enough to push this above baseline.

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 states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Tempo worklogs associated to a Tempo account key'). It is specific enough to indicate the tool's scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tempo_get_worklogs_by_user or tempo_get_worklogs_by_project. The name alone distinguishes it, and the description confirms the behavior.

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 usage: use this tool when you need worklogs filtered by an account key. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives (e.g., by user, by issue, by team), but the singular 'associated to a Tempo account key' gives clear context. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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