search_errors_in_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a search operation ('Search for Sentry errors') which implies a read-only, non-destructive action, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating usage context or behavioral details without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns or how it behaves, but it meets the bare minimum for a search tool.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions 'file path or filename' and 'search', but these are already covered by the 'file_identifier' and 'identifier_type' parameters in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't 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: 'Search for Sentry errors occurring in a specific file' with the verb 'search' and resource 'Sentry errors'. It specifies the scope 'in a specific file' and distinguishes the search target as 'file path or filename'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'get_sentry_issue', which might also involve error/issue retrieval.

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 'Find all issues related to a particular file path or filename' but doesn't clarify how this differs from sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'get_sentry_issue', which might list or retrieve issues without file-based filtering. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for usage.

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