list_worklogs

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description goes further by disclosing autopagination and a hard result cap of 500 records — behavior an agent cannot see in the schema. It stops short of saying whether the 'limit' parameter can override or lift that cap.

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 short sentences, the core purpose front-loaded, with the pagination/cap caveat second. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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-field documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers the key behavioral caveat (auto-pagination, 500-record max). The remaining gap is the undefined relationship between the 'limit' parameter and the stated ceiling.

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 description carries the burden; it clarifies that issue_id identifies the task (задачи) and that the result set is bounded at 500, which relates to the defaulted 'limit' param. However it never explains the 'limit' parameter itself or how the 500 ceiling interacts with it.

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 ('Получить') and resource ('записи трудозатрат задачи'), so an agent immediately knows this lists worklog entries for one issue. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent siblings such as get_issue_time_report or get_time_report, which also return time-tracking data.

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 guidance on when to choose this over get_issue_time_report, get_time_report, or the add/update/delete_worklog siblings. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the notion of retrieving records.

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