search_errors_in_file

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.