sentry_search_issues

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses key behaviors: automatically searches across all projects unless a project slug is provided, uses Sentry search syntax, default queries and limits, and that count mode returns counts/trends with an ASCII chart. It also notes that in count mode 'is:*' tokens are ignored. Missing details about pagination or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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 well-structured, starting with a bold purpose statement followed by details. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value, covering usage, syntax, and special modes. It could be slightly more concise, but the current length is justified by the richness of 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description provides a strong understanding of how to use the tool. It explains default behaviors, query syntax, count mode, and filters. While it doesn't detail the output format of issue lists or error handling, it covers the essential aspects 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%, yet the description adds substantial value beyond the schema. It provides concrete examples for 'query', explains the return type for 'count', directs users to 'sentry://projects' for project slugs, and explains the statsPeriod format for 'time_window'. The 'reasoning' parameter is explained as a justification for tool usage. This greatly enhances parameter understandability.

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 explicitly states it is 'THE PRIMARY SENTRY SEARCH TOOL' and lists numerous user intents (e.g., 'check sentry', 'look at errors', 'search sentry'). It clearly explains that it searches grouped issues across the whole org or filtered by project, uses Sentry search syntax, and has a count mode. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like sentry_get_issue_details or sentry_pattern_analysis.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool by listing example user requests ('check sentry', 'look at errors', etc.). It also explains the count mode for getting counts/trends. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the context implies it is for issue searches.

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