jira_list_worklogs

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of result size, ordering, pagination, or permission requirements. Since an output schema exists it need not explain return fields, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally tight, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, readOnlyHint annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description is just barely sufficient. It omits any note on result volume, ordering, or pagination that would help an agent call it confidently at scale.

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% and the single 'key' parameter is documented in-schema with a pattern and example (PROJ-123). The phrase 'of an issue' only loosely reinforces that the key is an issue identifier, so the description adds marginal value over the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('worklogs of an issue'), so there is no ambiguity about what the tool returns. It is distinguishable from its siblings (jira_add_worklog, jira_update_worklog, jira_delete_worklog) by the read verb, though it does not explicitly call out those siblings or contrast scope with jira_list_comments.

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 only states what the tool does; it never says when to use it, what prerequisites exist (e.g., the caller needs an issue key), or which alternatives to prefer. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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