get_sentry_issue

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.