tempo_get_worklogs_by_team

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination, date filtering, scope of 'all', or response shape. The word 'all' is ambiguous relative to from/to and limit/offset parameters, and no further disclosure is provided.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded but also minimal; it is concise though it could carry more useful detail.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the tool has 7 parameters including date ranges, pagination, and view shape, and no output schema. The description does not explain what 'all' means, how pagination works, or when to choose this team-specific endpoint over the many worklog siblings. This leaves an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 parameter semantics are carried by the schema; the description adds no extra meaning beyond reaffirming 'team' which maps to teamId. 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 uses a specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'Tempo worklogs', scoped to 'a specific Tempo team', which distinguishes it from worklog-by-user/project/issue/account siblings. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 like tempo_get_worklogs_by_user or tempo_get_worklogs_by_project. The description only states the purpose, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without exclusions or alternatives.

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