list_error_events_in_project

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.