tempo_get_worklogs_by_issue

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers that this is a read operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, or response characteristics, even though the schema provides limit/offset parameters. Since the annotation covers safety but the description fails to add any additional behavioral transparency, this scores below the baseline.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose. This is an appropriate size for a simple retrieval tool.

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 presence of seven parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about how the tool behaves, such as default pagination, time-range semantics, or what 'all' means in relation to the from/to parameters. The schema covers parameters but the description does not explain the tool's overall behavior or how it differs from sibling retrieval tools, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without external hints.

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 all seven parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only restates that worklogs are for a specific issue, which is already implied by the required issueId parameter.

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 the action (retrieve) and the resource (Tempo worklogs for a specific Jira issue). While the resource is specific, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like tempo_get_worklogs_by_project or tempo_get_worklogs_by_user. The name and required issueId parameter clarify the scope, but no explicit differentiation from siblings is given.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tempo_get_worklogs, tempo_get_worklogs_by_project, or tempo_search_worklogs. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or limitations that would help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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