get_issue_time_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the report's dimensions (plan/fact/deviation/employee/day) and the accepted date format, which is useful context, but says nothing about what happens when the optional dates are omitted or which effort categories are included.

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 compact sentences that lead with the tool's purpose and follow with the one non-obvious parameter convention. No filler, though the language of the description does not match the English tool/parameter names, which costs a little clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details need not be repeated. Still, for a three-parameter report tool with zero schema coverage, the definition omits issue_id semantics and the behavior of the optional date range, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so the schema gives no meaning for any of the three parameters. The description does clarify the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) for date_from/date_to, which is more than the schema provides, but leaves issue_id unexplained and never states that both dates are optional or what their omission means.

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 and resource: analyze the time/effort ('трудозатраты') of a single issue, plus what the report contains (plan, fact, deviation, breakdown by employee and day). It is clearly distinguishable from a system-wide time report, but it never names the sibling get_time_report or explains the scope difference explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative (get_time_report) and no stated prerequisites such as needing worklogs to exist. The only operational hint is the date format, which is not usage guidance.

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