get_sentry_event_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes beyond that by warning about token limits on large events and recommending the limit parameter, but says nothing about return format, pagination interaction, or auth/permission needs.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the practical limit warning. The ALL-CAPS 'IMPORTANT' is slightly noisy but the content earns its place.

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 full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but thin for a detail-retrieval tool: it does not describe the shape of returned event data or how entry_type filtering interacts with the limit/offset pagination fields.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a concrete example value (limit: 10) but no semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (details for a specific event ID within a project), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from list-style siblings like list_issue_events or get_issue_hashes. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives one actionable usage rule ('for large events, always use limit') but offers no when-to-use guidance relative to the many sibling retrieval tools (e.g., get_stack_frames, list_breadcrumbs, get_sentry_issue). Usage is implied rather than scoped.

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