Get Tempo worklogs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: read-only semantics, an auth requirement (TEMPO_API_TOKEN), and inclusive range boundaries. It omits pagination/result-cap behavior despite a maxResults parameter capped at 5000, and says nothing about the shape or size of what comes back.

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 sentences with no filler; the date-range constraint leads, the optional filter follows, and the safety/auth facts close. Nothing repeats the schema verbatim.

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 4-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks pagination guidance and any hint about the returned worklog fields. The auth and inclusivity notes are valuable, but coverage is partial.

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. It explains the YYYY-MM-DD format and the crucial 'inclusive' boundary semantics for startDate/endDate and clarifies that authorAccountId scopes to one Jira user, but maxResults is never mentioned, leaving the pagination knob undocumented in both places.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (Tempo worklogs) plus the scoping dimension (date range, optional accountId), which cleanly separates it from the singular tempo_get_worklog and the aggregate tempo_get_week_summary. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred from the plural resource.

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 usage through 'date range' and 'optionally scope to one Jira accountId', giving enough for an agent to infer the list-vs-single distinction. But it never states when to prefer tempo_get_worklog, tempo_get_week_summary, or tempo_preview_worklog, leaving routing to the reader.

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