tempo_get_worklogs_by_project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'all worklogs' scope but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default date range, or whether the response is ordered. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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?

A single clear sentence that states the verb, resource, and scope with zero waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could have added a hint about optional filters without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention that 'from'/'to' are optional, what the default time range is, or how pagination works. The output schema is absent, so a brief note on return shape would have helped.

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 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('all Tempo worklogs for a specific Jira project'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tempo_get_worklogs_by_user or tempo_get_worklogs_by_issue. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource scope is clear enough to differentiate.

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 context: use this when you need worklogs filtered by project. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like tempo_search_worklogs for more flexible filtering. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself offers no exclusion guidance.

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