sentry_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a complete transaction with nested spans and optionally triggers errors. This provides good transparency, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., Sentry DSN configuration) or side effects (e.g., data creation). Still, it accurately describes the primary actions.

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 two sentences, efficient, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes essential information without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), which reduces the need for the description to explain return values. However, the description does not mention what the agent can expect as a result (e.g., a confirmation message or status). For a tester tool, this information would be helpful, leaving some gap in completeness.

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 both parameters ('test_type' and 'trigger_error') including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the tool description does not add value over the schema.

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 tests Sentry integration by sending traces, spans, and optionally errors. It specifies the resource ('Sentry integration') and the action ('test'), and it is distinct from sibling tools, which are all Splunk-related and unrelated to Sentry.

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 implies the tool should be used for verifying tracing in Sentry. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives. Since there are no similar tools among siblings, exclusions are less critical, but the lack of explicit guidance slightly reduces the score.

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