sentry_get_issue_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details what information is returned (summary, stack trace, breadcrumbs, etc.) and explains breadcrumbs as 'chronological events leading UP TO the error'. It does not mention potential limitations like rate limits or output size, but covers core behavioral traits well.

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 moderately long but well-structured with an opening emoji marker, clear sections, and a list of triggers. Every sentence contributes to understanding. Could be slightly more concise, but still efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description lists the return components (summary, stack trace, breadcrumbs, etc.). With 5 parameters fully described in schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to know what the tool does and what to expect. Lacks details on output structure but sufficient given no schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of breadcrumbs and frames (e.g., 'how many stack frames to show per exception (innermost first)') and emphasizing that 'reasoning' is for explanation. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond 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's purpose as 'ROOT CAUSE TOOL' and lists specific user queries that trigger it. It explicitly describes what is fetched (summary, stack trace, breadcrumbs, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like sentry_search_issues and sentry_trace_lookup.

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 explicit triggers for usage (e.g., 'what happened before this error', 'show the stack trace') and suggests it as a follow-up after sentry_search_issues. It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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