get_users_worklog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the single-request behavior, inclusive date range, and breakdown nesting. While it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or error handling, the core behavioral traits are adequately covered.

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 efficiently structured with a brief summary, behavioral explanation, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse. No redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers most aspects: core function, comparison with siblings, and parameter details. The missing 'exclude_absence' parameter and lack of response structure summary (though output schema exists) prevent a perfect score.

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 description explains 5 of 6 parameters with added context (e.g., breakdown options, date format). However, it omits the 'exclude_absence' parameter, which is present in the schema but undocumented. Despite this gap, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property titles.

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's function: retrieving total hours logged by a group of users within a date range, per user. It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_worklog (singular) and get_team_worklog by emphasizing it handles multiple users in a single request, eliminating ambiguity.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool (e.g., for multiple users) and warns against common misuse (e.g., 'never call this once per user'). It also implicitly suggests alternatives for single users or teams, providing clear context for tool selection.

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