tempo_get_worklogs_by_user

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds only the scope of the results (worklogs for a specific user), but does not clarify how 'all' interacts with the optional date range, limit, or offset, or what the response shape looks like.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no repetition of the name, title, or schema details.

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?

This is a simple read tool with a rich parameter schema and a read-only annotation, so it is minimally callable. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain pagination behavior, return shape, or how 'all' relates to the limit/offset parameters, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and resource ('Tempo worklogs') and scopes the result to a specific Atlassian user, which makes it recognizable among the many worklog siblings. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like by-project or by-issue, but the user dimension is the key differentiator.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over tempo_get_worklogs_by_project, tempo_get_worklogs_by_issue, or the generic tempo_get_worklogs. It also does not mention whether this is the appropriate tool for filtered or unfiltered user worklog retrieval.

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