tempo_get_worklogs_by_team

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context with the prompt-injection warning that returned text is third-party authored and must be treated as data, not instructions — a meaningful disclosure for an open-world read tool. It still says nothing about pagination or result-size behavior despite limit/offset parameters.

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 with no waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the security caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 annotations covering safety, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the untrusted-content warning. The only real gap is pagination/result-volume behavior, which no output schema covers.

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 detailed prose on the compact/full view enum, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax, default, or date-format detail beyond it, 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 (Tempo worklogs) scoped to 'a specific Tempo team', which separates it from the by_issue/by_account/by_project/by_user siblings. It never names those alternatives, but the scoping phrase is distinctive enough that an agent can route to it.

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 only implied by the 'for a specific Tempo team' scope; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer tempo_search_worklogs or the other by_* variants, and no stated prerequisites such as team membership or permissions.

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