Get issue worklogs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that worklogs are listed; it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering defaults, permission implications, or the structure of the returned worklogs. The read-only nature is only implied by the word 'List'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a straightforward read/list operation.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without critical context such as what a worklog object contains and how pagination is surfaced in the response. The description is too minimal to be fully actionable for a list operation that supports ordering and pagination.

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 schema already describes issueKey and orderBy, and startAt/maxResults have meaningful defaults and bounds. The description adds only the issue scope and adds little parameter-level meaning, but it does not conflict with the schema. This is adequate but not enriching.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('time-tracking worklogs') scoped to an issue, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_worklog and get_issue. The action and target are immediately understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not contrast with add_worklog, get_issue, or list_comments, nor does it state any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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