get_user_worklog

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

The description explains server-side filtering, breakdown behavior, and default for exclude_absence. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, which is acceptable given no annotations but lacks full transparency.

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 informative and well-structured with a clear parameter section. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary details (parameter formats, optionality, behavior) and references the API source.

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?

All six parameters are thoroughly explained with format, optionality, and behavior (e.g., breakdown options, exclusion default). This adds significant value beyond the empty schema descriptions.

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 tool returns total hours logged by a user in a date range, optionally broken down. It uses specific verbs and resource identification, distinguishing it from siblings like get_users_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 implies usage for single-user worklog retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_users_worklog or provide conditions for use.

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