BugSnag: Get Event Details From Dashboard URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the required URL structure (project slug in path, event_id in query) and what the expected output contains (stack trace, metadata, context). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Toolset, Parameters, Use Cases, Examples, Hints) and the core purpose is front-loaded. Some redundancy exists between Use Cases and Hints, and the parameter section repeats the schema verbatim, but overall it remains focused and scannable.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains expected output, input requirements, and common use cases. It could be more thorough about error behavior or exact parsing rules, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% for the single 'link' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema with a concrete example URL and hints about the necessary components, which helps an agent construct a valid input. This extra guidance justifies a score above 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 uses a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and a precise resource ('specific event using its dashboard URL'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like bugsnag_get_event by emphasizing the URL-based access path and explicitly noting this avoids needing separate project/event IDs.

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 provides clear context through Use Cases and Hints: it is intended for dashboard URLs from users/notifications, shared links, or quick lookups. It implies alternatives (separate project/event ID tools) by saying this works 'without needing separate project and event IDs', but does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives.

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