tempo_get_worklogs_by_project

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, not instructions. That is a real prompt-injection caveat beyond the annotations, though pagination/rate-limit behavior is left to the schema.

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, both load-bearing: the first states purpose and scope, the second states the trust boundary. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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, fully schema-documented list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and adds the untrusted-content warning. It omits pagination behavior (limit default 50 / offset) and sibling routing, which are minor gaps given the schema already documents pagination.

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%, including a detailed view enum explanation and date formats, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about projectId, date ranges, limit/offset, or the view mode, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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), resource (Tempo worklogs) and scope (for a specific Jira project), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling by-issue/by-team/by-account/by-user variants by scope alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'for a specific Jira project' scoping phrase, which tells the agent this is the project-scoped worklog reader. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the alternative accessors (by issue, team, account, user) that an agent must choose between.

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