Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• get_sentry_issueC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 insight. It mentions 'analyze' which suggests some processing beyond simple retrieval, but doesn't clarify what analysis entails, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to disclose key operational traits.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is extremely concise at just two sentences, with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently states parameter acceptance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'analyze' means in practice, what the tool returns, or how it differs from sibling tools. The lack of behavioral context and output information leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand this tool's full functionality.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'Accepts issue URL or ID' which aligns with the 'issue_id_or_url' parameter, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or provide context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given comprehensive schema coverage.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve and analyze') and resource ('a Sentry issue'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sentry_event' by focusing on issues rather than events, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_project_issues' or 'resolve_short_id', which also handle issues.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 to choose 'get_sentry_issue' over 'get_sentry_event' for related data, or how it differs from 'list_project_issues' for browsing multiple issues. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

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

• list_error_events_in_projectC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. It mentions listing 'recent errors' but doesn't specify time ranges, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'frequency patterns' entails. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states the main action, and the second adds useful context about what can be viewed. 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.

  Completeness3/5

  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 moderately complete for a read tool with 4 parameters. It covers the basic purpose and some output details but lacks behavioral context like error handling, data freshness, or integration with siblings. For a tool in this context, it meets a minimum viable level but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  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 some siblings like 'list_projects' or 'list_project_issues' by specifying error events, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_issue_events' or 'search_errors_in_file', which appear related. The mention of 'recent errors, frequency patterns, and occurrence timestamps' adds specificity but doesn't fully resolve sibling ambiguity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 siblings like 'list_issue_events' or 'search_errors_in_file', which likely serve similar purposes, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing project access. The context is implied through the resource focus but lacks explicit usage rules or exclusions.

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

• list_issue_eventsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. It mentions analyzing 'event details, metadata, and patterns', which hints at output behavior, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination handling, rate limits, or what 'analyze' entails. The description is too vague for a mutation-sensitive context.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, the phrase 'Analyze event details, metadata, and patterns' is somewhat vague and could be more precise. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  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 for a tool with 4 parameters. It fails to address key behavioral aspects like safety (read vs. write), authentication needs, or output format details. For a list operation in a potentially complex system like Sentry, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or practical usage examples. Baseline score of 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.

  Purpose4/5

  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 unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_error_events_in_project' by focusing on issue-specific events rather than project-wide errors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_sentry_event' which might retrieve a single event.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 to choose 'list_issue_events' over 'list_error_events_in_project' or 'get_sentry_event', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an issue ID. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

• list_organization_replaysC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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. While 'List replays' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state this or address other behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (though cursor parameter hints at it), rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what constitutes a 'replay' in Sentry's context. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that both add value. The first sentence states the core operation clearly, and the second provides helpful domain context about what replays monitor. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. While it could be slightly more structured with usage guidance, it's efficiently written.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It establishes the tool's purpose and domain context but leaves significant gaps: no behavioral transparency, no usage guidance, no explanation of return values or format implications. The high parameter count and lack of output schema suggest more contextual information would be helpful for effective tool selection and use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., stats_period vs start/end), typical values, or how parameters interact with the monitoring context mentioned. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does all the heavy lifting.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List replays from a Sentry organization' with the specific resource (replays) and domain context (Sentry). It distinguishes from some siblings like list_projects or list_issue_events by focusing on replays, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The additional context about monitoring sessions, interactions, errors, and experience issues provides helpful domain framing.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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. While it mentions monitoring user sessions and errors, it doesn't specify scenarios where replays would be preferred over other sibling tools like list_error_events_in_project or get_sentry_event. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for replay data versus other Sentry data types.

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

• list_project_issuesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 monitoring 'issue status, severity, frequency, and timing', which hints at what information is returned, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and monitoring aspects. It's front-loaded with the main action, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated or omitted if it doesn't add critical value beyond the first.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters like 'view' and 'format' impact the output. For a list tool with monitoring claims, 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.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'view' or 'format' affect the output. This meets the baseline score 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the action ('List issues') and resource ('from a Sentry project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_sentry_issue' or 'list_issue_events', which appear to have overlapping functionality with issues.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 'get_sentry_issue' or 'list_issue_events'. It mentions monitoring aspects but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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

• list_projectsC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 'accessible' projects which implies some permission/visibility constraints, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid organization slugs. For a read operation 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating scope from output details, but there's no wasted text. Every element serves a purpose, though it could benefit from clearer organization.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a read/list tool with 3 parameters (100% schema coverage) but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors, pagination) and usage guidance relative to siblings. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention return format expectations.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions viewing 'project slugs, IDs, status, settings, features, and organization details' which aligns with the 'view' parameter options, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. 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.

  Purpose4/5

  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 ('accessible Sentry projects'), and specifies the scope ('accessible') and what information is included ('project slugs, IDs, status, settings, features, and organization details'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' by being a read operation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'list_organization_replays'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 'list_project_issues' or 'list_organization_replays'. It mentions 'accessible' projects but doesn't explain what makes a project accessible or any prerequisites. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.

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

• resolve_short_idC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 what gets retrieved ('issue details, project context, and status') but lacks critical information: whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format details. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about what details are retrieved. Both sentences earn their place, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for retrieved details).

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  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 for a tool with 3 parameters. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral traits (e.g., safety, auth), usage context vs. siblings, and output details. For a retrieval tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to effectively use it.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the 'short_id' format (e.g., 'PROJECT-123') but doesn't elaborate on 'organization_slug' or 'format' usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve details about an issue using its short ID.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('issue details'), and scope ('short ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sentry_issue' or 'list_project_issues', which might also retrieve issue details through different mechanisms.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides minimal guidance: it implies usage when you have a short ID (e.g., 'PROJECT-123'), but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. For instance, it doesn't clarify when to use this tool over 'get_sentry_issue' or other issue-related siblings, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter differences alone.

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

• search_errors_in_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a search operation but lacks behavioral details: no mention of permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'errors' and 'issues' mean in Sentry context. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for missing annotations, leaving key operational traits undisclosed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes, but it efficiently communicates the essential function without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, though it lacks depth due to brevity.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  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 search tool with 6 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide sufficient context for safe and effective use, especially for a tool interacting with an external system like Sentry.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'file path or filename' and 'search for errors', which aligns with 'file_identifier' and the tool's purpose but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints. 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.

  Purpose4/5

  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' with the verb 'search' and resource 'Sentry errors'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_project_issues' by specifying file-based filtering, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about sibling differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 'Find all issues related to a particular file path or filename' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'list_project_issues' or 'get_sentry_issue'. Without usage context, the agent must infer based on tool names alone.

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

• setup_sentryC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 the tool 'Set up Sentry' and returns outputs, but doesn't clarify if this creates resources, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a setup 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and outputs 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.

  Completeness2/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the complexity of a setup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Set up Sentry' entails (e.g., creation, configuration), potential impacts, or return values beyond mentioning 'dsn and instructions'. More context is needed for adequate understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 5 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. 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.

  Purpose4/5

  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'), and specifies the outputs ('returning a dsn and instructions for setup'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_project', which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 organization and team), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'list_projects'. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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

• create_projectB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 'Create a new project' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. The tracking context is helpful 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new project in Sentry') and adds useful context about tracking. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information that would be needed for full completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  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 will track. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'setup_sentry', but the verb 'Create' makes the purpose unambiguous.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  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 'list_projects' or 'setup_sentry'. It mentions what the project tracks but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage.

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

• get_sentry_eventB
  3.2/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 required parameters but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the retrieved event includes (e.g., metadata, stack traces). For a retrieval tool with no 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.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that state the purpose and prerequisites without waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and well-structured.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness2/5

  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 for a tool with 5 parameters and retrieval functionality. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, response format) and doesn't compensate for the missing output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by naming 'issue ID/URL and event ID' as required, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining how to derive organization_slug). 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.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a specific Sentry event from an issue.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('Sentry event'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_issue_events' by focusing on a single event. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_sentry_issue' beyond the resource type, which slightly limits clarity.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  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 explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_issue_events' for multiple events or 'get_sentry_issue' for issue-level data. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, 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.