BugSnag: Get Events on an Error

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, making safety clear. The description adds behavioral details about pagination (nextUrl parameter), default filters, and output structure (list with stack traces, breadcrumbs). No contradictions 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 fairly long with a parameter list that largely duplicates the schema. However, it is structured with clear sections (description, parameters, use cases, examples) and the essential action is front-loaded. Could be streamlined slightly but is functional.

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?

Given no output schema, the description appropriately includes expected output details (list with stack trace, breadcrumbs, etc.) in the example. It explains pagination and filter discovery. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or invalid inputs, but for a read-only list tool, it covers the main needs.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining filter format (ISO 8601/relative), pagination behavior (only use nextUrl from output), and listing defaults. This provides practical guidance for parameter usage.

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 clearly states the verb 'gets' and the resource 'list of events that have grouped into the specified error'. The title 'BugSnag: Get Events on an Error' exactly matches. It distinguishes from siblings like bugsnag_get_event (single event) and bugsnag_list_project_errors (list of errors) by specifying events grouped into a particular 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?

A use case is provided ('retrieving all events for comparison...'), and an example shows typical usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like bugsnag_get_event or bugsnag_list_project_errors. The description mentions a filter discovery tool, which is helpful for usage context.

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