sentry_list_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('List') but never states read-only safety, and it omits important behavior such as the default 'is:unresolved' filter, pagination/limit behavior, or result ordering, which an agent needs to interpret the output correctly.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is doing very little work beyond echoing the schema.

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 4-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits the default query behavior, sort default, limit ceiling, and any notion of result shape or pagination, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer behavior from the schema alone.

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%: query and project are documented in the schema, while sort and limit are not documented anywhere. The description's 'Supports Sentry search syntax' merely restates the schema's own query description and adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail for the undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List recent Sentry issues') plus scope ('for a project'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like sentry_get_issue or sentry_search_by_trace, so the differentiation is only inferable from the tool names.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The only hint is that it supports Sentry search syntax, which tells the agent a query is possible but not when this tool should be chosen over sentry_get_issue, sentry_get_issue_events, or sentry_search_by_trace.

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