tempo_get_worklogs_by_user

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 by flagging that returned text is third-party-authored and untrusted and must be treated as data, not instructions — a valuable prompt-injection warning. It stops short of describing pagination or result volume.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the trust caveat. No filler and every sentence 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 listing tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the crucial data-trust aspect. With no output schema it says nothing about the returned structure, but annotations and the schema carry most of the remaining burden, so only a minor gap remains.

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 every parameter (dates, view, limit, offset, accountId, updatedFrom) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve), resource (Tempo worklogs), and scope (for a specific user). Clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, but it never names a sibling or clarifies the distinction from the very similar tempo_get_worklogs_by_account or tempo_get_worklogs, leaving a borderline ambiguity unresolved.

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 tool name and the 'for a specific user' phrasing; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance against the many sibling worklog tools (by_issue, by_team, by_project, search_worklogs). Adequate minimum but no routing help.

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