get_sentry_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what information the tool returns (stacktraces, first/last occurred, counts, status), which is helpful, but does not mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 plus a bullet list, front-loading the purpose. The bullet list could be slightly more compact, but overall well structured and easy to scan.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key use cases and return information. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, data freshness) that would make it fully complete for an 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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, and the schema already describes 'Sentry issue ID or URL'. The description repeats 'by ID or URL' in the first sentence, adding minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 'Retrieve and analyze a Sentry issue by ID or URL' and lists specific use cases (investigate errors, access stacktraces, etc.), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_list_issues' that deals with multiple issues.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to:' followed by a list of scenarios, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling tool as an alternative, though the sibling context from the environment suggests differentiation.

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