list-issue-worklogs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List all time logs' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (if any), error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all time logs') and target ('for a specific issue'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness standards.

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 complexity (a list operation with 2 required parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'time log' entails (e.g., fields like duration, user), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., max items). For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('project_id' and 'issue_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are required for scoping, which is already covered. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('time logs for a specific issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-issue-worklog' (singular) or 'get-project-total-worklogs' (aggregate), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., 'all' is implied but not stated) and doesn't fully differentiate from potential overlaps like 'list-issue-activities' which might include worklogs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing issue access), exclusions (e.g., not for aggregated data), or direct siblings like 'get-issue-worklog' for a single worklog. The context is implied ('for a specific issue'), but no explicit usage rules are given, leaving the agent to infer from the name and parameters alone.

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