get_sentry_event

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.