BugSnag: Get Event

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description is consistent with that profile. It adds some return-content context (stack traces, metadata, context) but does not disclose anything else such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side 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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and uses concise sections and a JSON example. The explicit parameter list is redundant with the schema, but the overall size is acceptable.

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 simple two-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies the essential details: required eventId, optional projectId behavior, an example, and expected response contents. It is nearly complete, only lacking guidance about how to discover eventId or how this tool differs from similar event/error tools.

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 the parameter section mostly duplicates the schema. The example adds a concrete eventId format ('6863e2af012caf1d5c320000') and the expected-output description clarifies what the response contains, which goes beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific event'), and the Use Cases section clarifies that this returns full event details including stack traces. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like bugsnag_get_event_details_from_dashboard_url or bugsnag_get_events_on_an_error.

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 use case implies the tool is for retrieving a single event's full details, and the example encodes the expected input. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over nearby siblings, no exclusions, and no relationship to list-events or error-detail tools.

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