jira_get_worklogs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List worklogs for an issue,' which implies a read operation but doesn't mention permissions, pagination, or what exactly is returned. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary details.

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 is simple (one parameter) but the description is extremely minimal. There is no output schema or annotations, so the agent must infer return values, ordering, and potential limitations. The description doesn't explain what a worklog contains or whether multiple worklogs are returned. It is not complete enough for full understanding.

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 only parameter issueKey is fully documented in the input schema with an example ('APP-1851'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'for an issue' aligns with the parameter but doesn't enhance it.

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 action: 'List worklogs for an issue.' It specifies the verb (List), the resource (worklogs), and the scope (for an issue), making it distinct from sibling tools like jira_get_issue or jira_add_worklog.

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 that worklogs might be available through jira_get_issue or that jira_add_worklog is for creating worklogs. The single sentence implies usage only by naming the action, with no explicit context.

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