BugSnag: Get Error

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the returned fields (error_details, latest_event, pivots, url), notes that filters narrow summaries further, and instructs the agent to show the dashboard URL to the user. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence and uses well-labeled sections for parameters, output, use cases, examples, and hints. It is longer than strictly necessary because the parameter section largely duplicates the input schema and the example is generic, but the extra sections provide actionable agent guidance overall.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only retrieval tool: it enumerates output fields despite no output schema, gives concrete workflows for error investigation, explains how to get error IDs, names the event-detail alternative, and tells the agent to surface the dashboard URL. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the description largely restates schema text, which establishes the baseline of 3. It goes slightly further by clarifying that filters narrow 'summaries further', explaining when to reuse filters, directing users to the List Project Event Filters tool for available filter fields, and documenting time format options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Get full details on an error' — and clarifies the scope: aggregated data across all events plus details of the latest event. This clearly distinguishes it from event-level or error-list siblings like bugsnag_get_event and bugsnag_list_project_errors.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: investigate errors found via List Project Errors, use after filtering, and pass the same filters to restrict results. It also names the alternative — 'Use Get Event Details tool if you need detailed information about a specific event rather than the aggregated error' — making the choice unambiguous.

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