list_sentry_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states a read-like operation and mentions pagination, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The minimal disclosure leaves agents underinformed.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core action and key options. Every word earns its place with 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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain return format, pagination details, or default values for limit. The absence of any behavioral or usage context leaves gaps for effective agent usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds little beyond restating that filtering and pagination are possible, so it meets the baseline of 3. It provides no additional semantics like default behavior or parameter interactions.

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 lists issues for a specific project with optional filtering by query or status. It mentions pagination support. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_issues, which may have similar functionality, and the specific context of 'sentry' is implied by the name but not explained.

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. There are sibling tools like list_issues, list_error_events, and list_releases, but no comparative advice or preconditions are mentioned. Agents would need additional context to choose correctly.

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