jtk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions ('list', 'add') but doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether 'add' requires specific permissions, if worklogs are editable/deletable, rate limits, error handling, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool ('add') with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence efficiently lists actions. Both sentences earn their place, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating action contexts.

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 (7 parameters, mutation capability via 'add'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool correctly. The schema handles parameters well, but the description fails to compensate for other gaps.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters with clear descriptions and action-specific usage. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the actions, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples beyond what's in the schema (e.g., time_spent examples are already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Manage time tracking worklogs on Jira issues' with specific actions 'list' and 'add'. It uses a specific verb ('manage') and resource ('worklogs on Jira issues'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_issues' or 'manage_attachments', which might also handle time-related aspects.

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 lists actions but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for individual user worklogs or team tracking, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'manage_issues' that might also handle time data.

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