list_error_events_in_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at read-only behavior by using 'list' and 'view', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, leaving significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from features. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on return values, failing to provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively beyond basic purpose. This is a significant gap for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the impact of 'view' or 'format' choices. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('list', 'view') and resources ('error events from a specific Sentry project'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_events' or 'search_errors_in_file', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions viewing 'recent errors, frequency patterns, and occurrence timestamps' but doesn't specify context, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'list_issue_events' or 'search_errors_in_file', leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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