tempo_get_worklogs_by_issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context by flagging the returned text as third-party and untrusted, with explicit instruction to treat it as data. It omits pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults), which is a minor gap.

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, purpose front-loaded, followed by the security note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 lookup with fully documented params, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is largely complete and adds the key data-trust caveat. It could note pagination/default-limit behavior to be fully sufficient.

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 (including the view enum and date/update filters) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ("Retrieve") and resource ("all Tempo worklogs") scoped to "a specific Jira issue." The scope clearly separates it from the many by-team/by-account/by-project/by-user siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 scope (a specific issue) implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives like tempo_get_worklogs or tempo_search_worklogs. With eight sibling worklog retrievers, this leaves selection partly to inference.

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