sentry_get_issue_events

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions temporal pattern detection but omits how 'recent' is bounded, ordering, pagination, or return format. The 'detects temporal patterns' claim is unexplained, leaving the behavior opaque.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about pattern detection is arguably the most valuable but is terse and under-explained, wasting an opportunity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an unexplained analysis feature, the description is too thin for an agent to call it confidently. Key details like time window, ordering, and what patterns mean are missing.

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 50%: issueId is documented in the schema, but limit (with its default 25 and max 100) is undocumented both in schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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 verb+resource ('Get recent events for a Sentry issue') which is somewhat clear, but 'recent' is vague and the second sentence about detecting temporal patterns muddies whether this is a fetch or an analysis tool. It does not differentiate from siblings like sentry_get_issue or diagnose_issue.

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?

No when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explain when to reach for this over sentry_get_issue, diagnose_issue, or sentry_search_by_trace, which are natural alternatives in the sibling set.

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