get_team_worklogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states it retrieves a summary, but does not mention whether it aggregates data, what parameters are required, potential side effects, or return format. This is a significant gap for a tool that may have side effects or specific data handling.

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 short phrase, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation. It conveys the basic purpose but omits critical contextual details, making it less effective than a slightly longer description would be.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the summary contains, how parameters interact, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 has 4 parameters (endDate, sprintId, startDate, projectKey) with 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify the meaning of any parameter or how 'team' maps to them. It completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 'Get worklog summary for team' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (worklog summary), and mentions 'for team' to indicate scope. However, it does not define what 'team' means or how it differs from sibling tools like get_worklogs or get_workload_dashboard, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The context signals show many sibling worklog-related tools, but the description does not reference them.

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