get_sentry_issues

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but omits details like whether it's safe, side effects, authorization needs, or response characteristics. Minimal transparency beyond the action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it might be too concise, missing important context that could be added without bloat.

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 the simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description is minimal. It lacks context on what 'recent' means, default behavior, and how it fits with sibling tools. Incomplete for an agent to fully understand usage.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters.

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 action ('Fetch recent issues') and the resource ('from Sentry'), with a purpose hint ('for investigation'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like `investigate_issue` or `analyze_stack_trace`.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The phrase 'for investigation' is vague and does not specify contextual prerequisites or when to choose this over sibling tools like `analyze_stack_trace`.

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