jira_list_worklogs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List worklog entries' without mentioning pagination behavior (limit/startAt), default ordering, required permissions, or what fields are returned. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no structured metadata.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and readable, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification. The structure is appropriate for the minimal content, but the lack of supporting details prevents a perfect score.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. The description is only a purpose statement, leaving out any operational context such as pagination options, response format, or prerequisites. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete and fails to provide enough information for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not mention issueKey, limit, or startAt at all. The parameter names in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero semantic value beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter 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 'List worklog entries on a Jira issue' clearly identifies the action (list), resource (worklog entries), and scope (a Jira issue). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_list_comments and jira_add_worklog by specifying the unique resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_get_issue or jira_list_comments. The description is solely a purpose statement and lacks any context about preferred use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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