Get task worklogs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by disclosing the exact fields returned (id, minutes, comment, workedAt, author). This goes beyond the safe-read signal and helps the agent understand the output shape. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences, no redundant information. Every phrase serves a purpose, and the field list is useful without being verbose.

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 simple read-only retrieval with one well-documented parameter, the description is complete. It covers the return format (entry fields) and the core purpose. No output schema exists, but the field list compensates adequately. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters.

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 fully describes the only parameter (task_id as a UUID with a description). The description does not add further parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('time-tracking worklogs for a task'). It also lists the fields of each entry, which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like add_task_worklog or get_task_activity.

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 clear context that this tool is for retrieving time-tracking worklogs for a specific task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and sufficient for a simple getter tool.

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