list_issue_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions analyzing event details, metadata, and patterns, which hints at output behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the issue doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the core purpose, and the second adds context about what can be analyzed. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, though the second sentence could be more directly tied to tool usage rather than analysis interpretation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns complex event data, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'events' encompass, what format the analysis takes, or provide any behavioral context. For a tool with 4 parameters and likely rich output, more completeness is needed to help an agent understand what to expect.

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 already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 ('List') and resource ('events for a specific Sentry issue'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_project_issues' or 'list_error_events_in_project' by specifying issue-level events. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_sentry_event' or 'get_sentry_issue', which could provide more precise differentiation.

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 like 'get_sentry_event' (which might fetch a single event) or 'list_error_events_in_project' (which operates at project level). It mentions analyzing details, metadata, and patterns, but this is more about output interpretation than usage context. No explicit when/when-not statements or prerequisites are included.

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