BugSnag: Get Event

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's burden is lower. It adds value by specifying that the response includes 'any thread stack traces' and 'complete event details', which is beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise overall, but includes a parameter list that duplicates the schema. The structure is clear with sections for 'Use Cases' and 'Examples'. Could be slightly more succinct by omitting the parameter list.

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?

No output schema, but description compensates by stating expected output includes 'complete event details including stack trace, metadata, and context'. Annotations provide safety signals. For a simple get tool with two parameters, this is sufficient.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description repeats the parameter list but adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate semantic information.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific event', using specific verb 'get' and resource 'event'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bugsnag_get_event_details_from_dashboard_url and bugsnag_get_events_on_an_error, which have different scopes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like bugsnag_get_events_on_an_error. The 'Use Cases' section mentions getting full details including thread stack traces, but does not exclude or contrast with other tools. The agent must infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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