jira_get_worklogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation by saying 'lists', and it discloses the filtering behavior of mine_only. However, it doesn't mention any side effects or limitations beyond that, such as authentication requirements or potential errors for invalid issue keys. This is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is useful, and it clearly explains the mine_only parameter in a natural way. Perfectly concise.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It clarifies the primary scope (single issue) and the optional filter. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. It could potentially mention that it's a read-only operation, but 'lists' conveys that implicitly.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Issue key.' and 'Only my worklogs.'), so the description adds little extra. The phrase 'from one issue' adds a bit of semantic context to issue_key, but overall it doesn't go beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 it lists worklogs from a single issue, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (which retrieves issue details) and jira_search_issues (which searches across issues). The verb 'lists' and resource 'worklogs' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: retrieving worklogs for a specific issue. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope ('from one issue') provides clear context. There are no exclusions stated, but the purpose is self-evident.

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