raw_sentry_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is unfiltered JSON and warns about large responses (100K+ tokens) for event endpoints, which is important. However, it does not mention other behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or authentication required by the underlying API.

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 concise sentences: purpose, output, and a critical warning. Front-loaded with key information, no superfluous content.

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 a raw API tool with no output schema, the description covers return type and a key behavioral warning. It lacks mention of error handling or the fact that the tool is a pass-through, but it is otherwise complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the grep_pattern mention from the schema in the warning.

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 makes a raw API call to any Sentry endpoint, which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that are specific to particular endpoints.

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 use for endpoints not covered by specific tools, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus siblings. The warning about event endpoints provides some context but no explicit alternatives.

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