raw_sentry_api

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it warns that event endpoints can return 100K+ tokens and that responses are unfiltered. It stops short of covering auth requirements or confirming DELETE/PUT effects.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the token warning, with zero filler. Every sentence carries information.

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?

For an open-world, potentially destructive raw API tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the unfiltered-response caveat, and the token-blowup risk. It omits mutation/permission caveats (DELETE/POST effects), leaving a small gap for a dangerous tool.

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 (including method enum and the endpoint path format) are already documented. The description reinforces grep_pattern's importance for events, but this largely repeats the schema's own 'CRITICAL for event endpoints' note, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Make a raw API call to any Sentry endpoint') and adds the key qualifier 'Returns unfiltered JSON', which distinguishes this escape-hatch tool from the many specialized siblings like list_sentry_issues or get_sentry_event_details. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives one concrete conditional ('Use grep_pattern for events') but never routes the agent between this generic tool and the specialized siblings, nor says when the raw escape hatch is preferred over them. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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