get_issue_worklog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation and omits important behavior like pagination, expand behavior, date filtering, and response shape. The verb 'Get' at least implies a read-only operation, but that is minimal disclosure.

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 extremely short and concise, with no filler. However, it borders on tautology by simply restating the tool name, so it earns limited credit for efficiency while providing almost no additional content.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description needs to compensate by explaining that the tool returns worklogs for an issue, likely paginated and filterable by start time. The current description is too sparse for a tool with 6 parameters and pagination semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already explains pagination, expand, and date range parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given high schema coverage.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get issue worklogs' makes the operation specific to retrieving worklogs for an issue. It also distinguishes itself from sibling write tools like add_worklog, update_worklog, and delete_worklog, though it does not clarify whether this returns a list or a single worklog compared to get_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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_worklog. The description only states the action without specifying conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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