sentry_get_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (latest event stack trace, tags, contexts, cross-links), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, rate limits, or behavior on an invalid/unknown issue ID.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with every clause (stack trace, tags, contexts, cross-links) adding concrete information. No filler.

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?

For a single-required-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the agent gets back and implies a safe read. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and ID sourcing, but the essentials are present.

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 coverage is 100% for the single issueId parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing guidance for the ID, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Get") and resource ("full Sentry issue detail") and enumerates the payload contents (stack trace, tags, contexts, cross-links). This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like sentry_list_issues and event-oriented sentry_get_issue_events, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as sentry_get_issue_events or diagnose_issue. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it takes an issue ID.

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