get_worklog

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

There are no annotations and the description reveals nothing beyond the verb 'Get'. It does not disclose response format, error behavior, permission requirements, or whether this is a safe read operation. The tool description carries full behavioral burden and fails entirely.

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 only two words and contains no usable information. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, as it does not earn its place by adding value.

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 three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling list, this description is completely inadequate. An agent would have no idea what the tool returns, when to invoke it, or how it differs from get_issue_worklog.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, matching the baseline for high 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 'Get worklog' merely restates the tool name without specifying what this operation does. It does not clarify that this retrieves a single worklog by ID, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like get_issue_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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_issue_worklog, add_worklog, or update_worklog. With many worklog-related siblings, the absence of any selection criteria leaves the agent to guess.

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