Get one Tempo worklog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the load: it does disclose read-only semantics and the TEMPO_API_TOKEN requirement, which is genuinely useful. It omits what happens when the ID does not exist (error vs empty), and gives no sense of the returned payload for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the read-only and auth facts arrive early. Minor noise comes from the 'tempoWorklogId' label that doesn't match the schema's parameter name.

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 one-parameter lookup this covers the essentials (what it fetches, that it is safe, that auth is needed), but with no annotations and no output schema it should also say what a worklog result contains and how a missing ID is surfaced.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, yet the description only restates its role ('by its tempoWorklogId') and even names it differently from the schema's 'worklogId'. No format, range (positive integer), or lookup-source guidance is added.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve a single Tempo worklog') and scopes it to one record, which implicitly separates it from the sibling tempo_get_worklogs that lists many. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over tempo_get_worklogs, tempo_preview_worklog, or tempo_validate_worklog. The word 'single' hints at the by-ID lookup case, but usage is left to inference.

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