tempo_get_worklogs_by_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety-of-mutation is covered. The description adds a genuinely valuable behavioral note beyond that: returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, never as instructions, which is real prompt-injection guidance. It stops short of describing pagination defaults or result ordering.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the purpose stated first and the trust warning immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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, paginated list tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich schema is close to sufficient. The untrusted-content warning is an important addition, though it omits any hint of response volume or pagination behavior that a caller listing potentially large worklog sets would want.

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 documents all seven parameters, including the view enum and date formats. The description adds no syntax, default, or filtering semantics beyond restating the account-key scoping, 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 states a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (Tempo worklogs) and pins the scope to an account key, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling variants keyed on issue, team, project, or user. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names the alternative retrieval tools (e.g. tempo_get_worklogs_by_issue, tempo_search_worklogs). Routing is only inferable from the tool name, not from the description text.

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