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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read/write operation, its side effects (e.g., whether it sends data immediately or batches), permissions needed, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies debugging state.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, it's overly brief and could benefit from more context to be truly helpful, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves mutation (adding data), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, or how it integrates with sibling tools, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 fully documents parameters like message, category, level, and data. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are for 'debugging context,' which is already inferred from the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Add a breadcrumb') and purpose ('for debugging context'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a breadcrumb is in the Sentry context or how it differs from sibling tools like sentry_set_context or sentry_set_tag, which also add debugging information.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when breadcrumbs are appropriate compared to other debugging tools like sentry_capture_exception or sentry_set_context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool captures and sends exceptions, implying a write operation to Sentry, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, network behavior, error responses, or whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation. The description is too minimal for a tool that interacts with an external monitoring service.

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 communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool that sends data to an external monitoring service with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after capture (e.g., success/failure responses, how exceptions appear in Sentry), doesn't mention authentication or permissions needed, and provides no error handling guidance. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters including their types, enums, and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('capture and send') and the resource ('exception to Sentry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'sentry_capture_message', which likely captures messages rather than exceptions, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 like 'sentry_capture_message' or 'sentry_add_breadcrumb'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, error handling scenarios, or integration contexts where this tool would be appropriate, leaving the agent with minimal usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Capture and send' implies a write operation to Sentry's monitoring system, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this creates a new event or logs to an existing one, or what happens after sending. For a tool that presumably sends data to an external service, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's basic function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and the tool's apparent function of sending data to an external monitoring system, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after sending, whether there's confirmation or error handling, or how this integrates with Sentry's event lifecycle. For a tool that likely creates events in a monitoring platform, more context about the operation's impact would be helpful.

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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('capture and send') and target ('message to Sentry'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentry_capture_exception' or 'sentry_capture_session', which would require explaining this is specifically for custom messages rather than exceptions or session data.

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. With multiple sibling tools like 'sentry_capture_exception' and 'sentry_capture_session', there's no indication whether this is for custom log messages, error reporting, or other use cases. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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 states 'manually capture a session', implying a write operation that creates or updates session data, but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation 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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more informative. Every word earns its place, but the brevity limits helpfulness.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'capturing a session' entails, the implications of different statuses, or what happens after invocation. For a tool that likely modifies system state, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'sessionId' as 'Unique session identifier'). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('capture a session') and specifies the context ('for server-mode/request-mode'), which clarifies the purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'sentry_start_session' or 'sentry_end_session', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'sentry_start_session' or 'sentry_end_session'. It mentions 'server-mode/request-mode' but doesn't explain what that means or when it applies. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, making usage unclear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if there are rate limits, or what the return value contains. It mentions nothing about the alert rule lifecycle or system impact.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after creation, error conditions, or system constraints. The agent lacks context about the alert rule's purpose within Sentry or how it integrates with other tools. The description should provide more operational context given the tool's complexity.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes valid 'conditions' or 'actions', or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create') and resource ('alert rule for a project'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like sentry_create_project or sentry_create_release by specifying the alert rule resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alert-related tools (though none exist in the sibling list).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), when not to use it, or what other tools might be more appropriate for related tasks. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate slugs, rate limits, or what the response contains. The mention of tracking capabilities adds some context but doesn't cover critical mutation behaviors.

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 concise sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and value. First sentence states the action, second adds context about capabilities. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 mutation tool (create operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets returned, error conditions, side effects, or dependencies. The tracking capabilities mention adds some value but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral transparency needed for a write operation.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain relationships between name/slug, platform options, or team requirements). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create a new project') and resource ('in Sentry'), with additional context about what the project enables ('Track deployments, releases and health metrics'). It distinguishes from siblings like sentry_list_projects (list vs create) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sentry_setup_project, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies this is for initial project creation, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization or team first), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing projects), or clarify its relationship with sentry_setup_project.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new release' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a release ID). For a mutation 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new release'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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 this is a mutation tool (creating a release) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'release' means in Sentry context, what happens after creation, or any behavioral aspects. The agent lacks context about success responses, error handling, or system impact, making it inadequate for safe invocation.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters (version, projects, url, dateReleased) with descriptions. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create a new release' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('release'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sentry_list_releases' (which lists) and 'sentry_set_release' (which sets), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'sentry_create_project' or 'sentry_create_alert_rule' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), when not to use it (e.g., for updating releases), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'sentry_list_releases' or 'sentry_set_release'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('End') but doesn't explain what 'ending a session' entails—such as whether it sends data to Sentry, requires authentication, has side effects, or what happens if no session exists. For a mutation 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's function.

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 session-ending operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool in a monitoring context, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'status' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter relates to session termination. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter semantics.

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 ('End') and the resource ('current session'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentry_start_session' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other session-related tools beyond the basic verb contrast, keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session started with 'sentry_start_session'), exclusions, or contextual cues. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions, relying solely on the tool name and basic purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Finish' suggests a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if called without an active transaction, if it's idempotent, or what side effects occur (e.g., data submission to Sentry). It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 with zero waste—'Finish the current transaction' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core action without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., must have an active transaction), behavioral details (e.g., error handling, side effects), and what happens after finishing (e.g., data sent to Sentry). For a tool that likely impacts system state, this is inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with a well-documented 'status' parameter including enum values and a default. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'status' means in context or how it affects the transaction). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Finish the current transaction' clearly states the action (finish) and resource (current transaction), but it's vague about what a 'transaction' entails in this context (e.g., performance monitoring, error tracking). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentry_start_transaction' by indicating completion vs. initiation, but lacks specificity on the transaction's purpose or scope.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it should be used after starting a transaction (as inferred from sibling 'sentry_start_transaction'), but it doesn't state prerequisites, timing considerations, or when not to use it (e.g., if no transaction is active).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Retrieve' and requirements but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps 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 main action ('Retrieve a specific Sentry event') and includes essential prerequisites. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 tool's complexity (simple retrieval with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and requirements but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or output format, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.

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 ('projectSlug' and 'eventId'). The description adds value by implying a relationship to an issue ('from an issue') and stating requirements, but it doesn't provide additional meaning like format details or usage examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific Sentry event from an issue'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentry_get_issue' by focusing on events rather than issues, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The mention of 'issue ID/URL' is slightly misleading since the input schema uses 'projectSlug' and 'eventId', not an issue ID.

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 usage by stating 'Requires issue ID/URL and event ID,' which suggests prerequisites but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sentry_list_issue_events' or 'sentry_get_issue.' There's no explicit guidance on context or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat open-ended.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Retrieve and analyze', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'analyze' entails (e.g., returns detailed metadata, statistics, or related data). Critical behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format are omitted, making it insufficient for a tool with potential complexity.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second specifies the input. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 context: no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'analyze' means in terms of return values or behavior, which is crucial for a tool that might provide rich issue data. For a retrieval tool in a complex system like Sentry, more detail on output or analysis scope is needed to be adequately helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'issueId' documented as 'Issue ID or URL'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, merely restating 'Accepts issue URL or ID'. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Retrieve and analyze') and identifies the resource ('a Sentry issue'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentry_list_issues' (which lists multiple issues) by focusing on a single issue, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more precise about the 'analyze' aspect.

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 usage by specifying it accepts 'issue URL or ID', suggesting it's for fetching details of a known issue. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'sentry_get_event' (for specific events) or 'sentry_list_issues' (for browsing). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Get organization statistics' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the statistics are returned in. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 extremely concise at just three words with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While potentially too brief for completeness, as a standalone statement it achieves maximum efficiency without redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'organization statistics' means in practice, what format the data returns, or how the parameters interact. The agent would need to infer too much from the parameter schema alone, especially regarding the statistical output that isn't documented anywhere.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation, so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The description doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., that 'since' and 'until' define a time range for the statistic) or provide usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't add value.

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 'Get organization statistics' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('organization statistics'), which is better than a tautology. However, it's vague about what specific statistics are available and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like sentry_list_organization_replays or sentry_list_projects that also retrieve organization-level data. The description lacks specificity about the statistical nature of the data.

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. It doesn't mention when this statistical view is preferable over other data retrieval tools like sentry_list_issues or sentry_get_event, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for usage. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing error events but fails to specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The phrase 'View recent errors' implies a read operation, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or error handling.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence adds some context but could be more tightly integrated. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 listing error events, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, rate limits, or output format, and lacks usage guidelines. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 all parameters (projectSlug, limit, query). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how the query parameter works or what 'recent' means in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'error events from a specific Sentry project', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like sentry_list_issues or sentry_list_issue_events by specifying 'error events' rather than issues or other event types. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sentry_search_errors_in_file, which might be a close alternative.

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. It mentions 'View recent errors, frequency patterns and occurrence timestamps' but doesn't specify if this is for monitoring, debugging, or other contexts, nor does it reference sibling tools like sentry_list_issues or sentry_search_errors_in_file for comparison.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions analyzing event details, metadata, and patterns, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'analyze' entails operationally. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence ('Analyze event details, metadata and patterns') is vague and doesn't add clear operational value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral context needed for a tool with two parameters and sibling alternatives, making it inadequate for full agent 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (issueId and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'events for a specific Sentry issue', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentry_list_issues' by focusing on events per issue, but could be more explicit about the difference from 'sentry_list_error_events_in_project'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sentry_list_error_events_in_project' or 'sentry_get_event'. The description implies usage for analyzing event details, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing issues but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'issues' are in Sentry's context, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like pagination. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective usage.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('projectSlug' and 'query') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of common queries or clarification on project slug format, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List issues for a project' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'sentry_list_issue_events' or 'sentry_get_issue'. It specifies the target ('for a project'), which provides some context, but lacks detail on what 'issues' entail in this context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sentry_get_issue' (for a single issue) or 'sentry_list_issue_events' (for events related to issues). The description implies usage for listing issues, but offers no context on prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists replays but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit), pagination behavior (only mentions 'limit' parameter indirectly), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The monitoring context is helpful but insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 concise sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context about what replays monitor. There's no fluff or redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for monitoring aspects).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a list operation with three parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, response format, and practical usage scenarios. The monitoring context is a start but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output information.

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 all three parameters (project, limit, query). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('replays from a Sentry organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentry_list_issues' or 'sentry_list_projects' by specifying 'replays'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other replay-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.

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. It mentions monitoring 'user sessions, interactions, errors and experience issues', but this is more about the purpose rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons with similar tools like 'sentry_list_issue_events'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, or has any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with an external API.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate as a basic read operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on authentication requirements, return format, or error handling, which are important for API tools. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool, earning a high score as it doesn't create confusion or redundancy.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects in the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like sentry_list_issues or sentry_list_releases, which would require specifying what makes listing projects different from listing other resources.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, nor does it differentiate from other list operations in the sibling set, leaving the agent to infer usage context purely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. For a list operation 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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List releases') and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on output format, pagination, error handling, or behavioral context. For a list tool in a sibling-rich environment, more completeness is needed to help an agent use it effectively without guesswork.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'projectSlug'. The description implies the parameter is needed ('for a project') but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or how to obtain the slug. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'List releases for a project' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('releases'), with the scope ('for a project') implied by the required parameter. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentry_create_release' (create vs. list) and 'sentry_list_projects' (projects vs. releases), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'sentry_list_issues' or 'sentry_list_error_events_in_project' in terms of what type of data is listed.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'sentry_list_issues' for different data types. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving details, project context, and status, which gives some behavioral insight, but lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and mapping function. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidance, but overall it earns its place without waste.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. No output schema exists, so the description should ideally explain return values more clearly (e.g., what 'issue details' include). It covers basics but misses behavioral and output context, making it adequate but with gaps.

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%, with the parameter 'shortId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the mapping purpose and providing an example format ('e.g., 'PROJ-123''), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Retrieve details') and resource ('about an issue'), and specifies the key input ('using its short ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like sentry_get_issue by focusing on short ID mapping, though not explicitly naming alternatives. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 usage context by mentioning 'Maps short IDs to issue details', suggesting this tool is for resolving short IDs when they are available. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like sentry_get_issue or sentry_list_issues, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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

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 describes the search functionality but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence slightly repeats the first without adding new information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 tool's complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or return format, and while the schema handles parameters, the overall context for an AI agent to use this tool effectively is insufficient.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('projectSlug' and 'filename') documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that 'filename' refers to 'file path or filename to search for,' but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Search for Sentry errors occurring in a specific file' and 'Find all issues related to a particular file path or filename.' It specifies the verb (search/find) and resource (Sentry errors/issues filtered by file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentry_list_issues' or 'sentry_list_error_events_in_project' beyond the file-specific focus.

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 usage context by stating it searches 'in a specific file' and 'related to a particular file path or filename,' suggesting it should be used when file-based error filtering is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sentry_list_issues' or 'sentry_list_error_events_in_project,' nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Set custom context data' implies a write operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with other Sentry features. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its behavior.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves mutation (setting data), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader Sentry context, leaving agents with insufficient information for reliable use.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'name' and 'context' parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain what constitutes valid context data or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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 'Set custom context data' clearly states the action (set) and resource (context data), but it's vague about what 'context data' means in the Sentry ecosystem and doesn't differentiate from siblings like sentry_set_tag or sentry_set_user, which also set data. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context in which it's applicable (e.g., during error tracking), or how it relates to siblings like sentry_set_tag. Without such information, agents may struggle to select it appropriately.

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

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. While 'Set' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the release doesn't exist, whether it's idempotent, or how it affects tracking. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (a mutation tool for release tracking), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral context, the description is insufficient. It should explain more about the operation's effects, error conditions, or typical use cases to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 ('release' and 'dist') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'dist' or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and the target ('release version for release health tracking'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'sentry_create_release' or 'sentry_list_releases', which would require more specific context about when to use each.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a release must exist first), context (e.g., during deployment or error tracking), or exclusions (e.g., not for creating releases). With multiple sibling tools related to releases, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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

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 tag is sent with all events, which implies persistence or scope, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, reversibility, or how it interacts with other tools. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and is a mutation operation (setting a tag), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return values, error handling, or how the tag affects event flow, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for 'key' and 'value'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a tag') and the scope ('that will be sent with all events'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sentry_set_context or sentry_set_user. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., sentry_set_release), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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 like sentry_set_context or sentry_set_user, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It implies a write operation ('Set up') but doesn't disclose permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing settings), rate limits, or error handling. The mention of returning a DSN and instructions is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 core purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of DSN/instructions), error conditions, or dependencies. Given the complexity of setup operations, more context is needed for effective use.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'platform' influences the instructions returned, but this is already suggested by the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter 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') and the resource ('for a project'), specifying the outcome ('returning a DSN and instructions for setup'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentry_create_project' by focusing on setup/configuration rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if the project must already exist), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'sentry_create_project' or 'sentry_set_context' in usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral information. It states this is a 'set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose what happens to existing user context, whether this persists across sessions, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded with the essential action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'user context' means in Sentry, how this affects error tracking, what happens after setting it, or what the tool returns. The context signals show 5 parameters but the description provides no guidance on their usage.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Set') and resource ('user context for Sentry'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentry_set_context', 'sentry_set_tag', or 'sentry_set_release', which all involve setting different types of Sentry data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to other Sentry operations like session management or error tracking.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read/write operation, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., creating session data), rate limits, or what happens if called multiple times for the same session.

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 with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke it correctly in Sentry's session management workflow.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying session creation involves release health monitoring, which is minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Start a new session') and purpose ('for release health monitoring'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'sentry_end_session' or 'sentry_capture_session'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'sentry_start_transaction' also starts something).

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 like 'sentry_end_session' or 'sentry_capture_session', nor does it mention prerequisites or timing considerations for session management in Sentry's ecosystem.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Start a performance monitoring transaction' implies this initiates something, but doesn't reveal whether this creates resources, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how the transaction interacts with other tools. No information about what happens after starting or typical response patterns.

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, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero redundant or extraneous content.

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 tool that presumably creates or initiates monitoring transactions (implied by 'start'), the description is insufficient given no annotations and no output schema. It doesn't explain what a transaction is, how it relates to other Sentry operations, what happens after starting, or what the agent should expect as a result.

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 all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter 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 ('Start') and resource ('performance monitoring transaction'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'sentry_finish_transaction' or explain what a 'performance monitoring transaction' entails in the Sentry context.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sentry_finish_transaction' or other monitoring tools. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or when this operation is appropriate versus other Sentry operations.

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