Get Issue Worklogs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with it. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return shape, pagination, or multi-issue support; it even uses singular 'by its id', slightly understating the capability. No contradiction 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and resource immediately, and every word is informative. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 rich input schema (which documents both parameters and the multi-issue format), the presence of an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the minimal description is mostly sufficient. The only notable omission is that the description itself does not mention that multiple issue IDs can be queried in one call, though the schema covers that detail.

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%: issue_ids documents the '<project>-<id>' format and 'Multiple Issue IDs', and fields explains what to include and to omit to get all. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail and its singular 'by its id' is less accurate than the schema's plural description, so it provides no added value beyond the structured field 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 clearly states the operation ('Get') and resource ('worklogs') for Yandex Tracker issues, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle comments, attachments, changelogs, or that add/update/delete worklogs. The phrase 'by its id' identifies the key input, though it underrepresents that multiple issue IDs are supported.

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 choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools like issue_get_comments or issue_get_changelog. The only clues are the tool name and the word 'worklogs', so usage is left entirely to inference.

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