Check for duplicate worklogs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it discloses key traits: read-only, heuristic-only (cannot guarantee uniqueness), and the confidence/reason output shape. This is solid disclosure, though it doesn't explain what signal drives confidence levels.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return shape, and limitation. Front-loaded and zero waste.

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 no output schema, the description steps up by describing return values (matches with confidence and reasons) and the heuristic limitation. It falls short only on explaining parameter roles for a 4-param tool.

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 compensate, but it only vaguely references 'the same issue and date' and 'proposed worklog.' It never explains description or durationMinutes or how these affect matching, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Compare a proposed worklog against existing Tempo worklogs for the same issue and date.' An agent can distinguish it from creation tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tempo_validate_worklog or tempo_preview_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?

Usage is implied (check before creating to avoid duplicates), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative among the many worklog siblings. The heuristic caveat hints at when it's appropriate without stating it.

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