get_sentry_event_details

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 only hints at potential data volume issues (token limits) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what authentication is required, rate limits, or other side effects. The word 'retrieve' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds an important usage note. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and a key usage tip but lacks depth. It does not explain what 'details' include, error handling (e.g., event not found), or response structure. The schema handles parameter descriptions well, but the overall context for the agent is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the limit parameter for large events, but does not explain other parameters like offset or entry_type beyond what is in the schema. The warning about token limits is useful but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 that the tool retrieves details for a specific event ID within a project. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_issue_events which list events rather than fetch a single one. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from tools like get_sentry_issue, which retrieves an issue rather than an event.

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 an important usage tip: for large events, always use the limit parameter to avoid token limits. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to use get_sentry_event_details vs list_issue_events or get_sentry_issue). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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