get_sentry_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions filtering and automatic truncation to reduce response size, which is useful, but does not detail the truncation mechanism, error handling, or any side effects. It also notes that latest event details are only included if requested.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose, key features (stacktrace, filtering, truncation), and input method (ID or URL). Every part is informative and there is no redundancy.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about response structure, error cases, and the effect of filters. It mentions truncation but not how to control it. It is adequate but leaves several aspects unexplained.

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?

All six parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds the concept of 'filtering and automatic truncation' but does not materially extend meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves details for a specific Sentry issue by ID or URL, including the stacktrace from the latest event. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issues which list multiple issues, or get_sentry_event_details which focuses on events.

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 implies the tool is for fetching details of a known issue, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_issues or get_sentry_event_details. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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