tempo_search_worklogs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not restate safety. It adds the behavioral detail that the tool uses a POST body, which is useful because it signals an unusual HTTP method for a read-only operation. It does not describe return behavior, but that is partially covered by the schema's view parameter.

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 focused sentences: the first states the action and key filters, the second names the precise alternatives for unsupported filter types. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a search tool with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations. It could be more complete by also referencing simpler worklog siblings like tempo_get_worklogs_by_project or tempo_get_worklogs_by_user, but the core usage and routing guidance are sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond naming author ids, issue ids, project ids, and date range, all of which are already documented in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a worklog search with advanced filters across author, issue, project, and date range. It distinguishes itself from the team- and account-filtered siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the simpler by_user/by_issue/by_project list tools.

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 explicitly directs team- or Tempo-account-filter needs to tempo_get_worklogs_by_team and tempo_get_worklogs_by_account. It does not state when to prefer this over related worklog-getting tools, but the 'advanced filters' framing provides a reasonable implied use case.

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