get_error_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and it usefully discloses the richness of the payload (parsed frames, code context, tags, breadcrumbs), but it says nothing about cost, latency, pagination, size limits, or required permissions.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with the return contents appended compactly. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and even previews what comes back. The remaining gap is the absence of any note on output size or when the deep payload is unnecessary.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents issue_id fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or identifier-hunting guidance beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('deep technical details for a specific Sentry issue') and enumerates the payload contents (stack frames, code context, tags, breadcrumbs). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the list-style siblings like get_recent_errors by scoping to one issue, but it never names an alternative tool directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'for a specific Sentry issue' suggests this is the drill-down call after an issue has been identified, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (an issue_id must already be known), and no guidance versus siblings such as get_recent_errors or explain_incident.

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