BugSnag: Get Events on an Error

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: default filters (event.since=30d, error.status=open), pagination via nextUrl with a warning not to construct it manually, and the expected output (ordered by timestamp with stack traces, breadcrumbs, metadata, and context).

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 opening sentence is direct and useful, and the Use Cases/Expected Output sections add value. However, the Parameters section duplicates the schema descriptions almost verbatim, making the definition longer than necessary.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides expected output format, default filters, pagination guidance, filter discovery advice, and a realistic example. It is largely complete for correct invocation, though it could better differentiate this list endpoint from single-event retrieval 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The Parameters section largely repeats the schema's descriptions verbatim and does not add substantial new meaning beyond the example call and expected output.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Gets a list of events that have grouped into the specified error.' This clearly distinguishes it from tools like bugsnag_get_error or bugsnag_get_event, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 Cases section provides a concrete scenario: retrieving all events for comparison of stack traces, breadcrumbs, and metadata. This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly describe when-not-to-use it or name alternatives.

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