setup_sentry

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 mentions the tool 'Set up Sentry' and returns a 'dsn and instructions', but fails to describe critical traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., creating new resources), rate limits, or error handling. For a setup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that front-loads the key action and outcome without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring it into clearer clauses for action and result, but overall it is concise and well-formed.

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 of a setup operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and what the 'dsn and instructions' output entails, which are crucial for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. The description does not compensate for the missing structured data, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the existing documentation.

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 ('Set up Sentry for a project') and the outcome ('returning a dsn and instructions for setup'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'list_projects', which might involve similar project-related operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific setup tool.

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, such as 'create_project' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios where setup is needed, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description without explicit direction.

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