sentry-mcp-rs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as a retrieval operation and specifies input alternatives, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when both input methods are provided. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key usage information. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 retrieval tool with 4 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and basic usage guidance. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, and authentication - leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the two alternative input methods (issueUrl vs. organizationSlug+issueId), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'detailed information about a specific Sentry issue', specifying what information is included (metadata, tags, optionally an event). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_trace_details' (different resource) and 'search_issue_events' (search vs. specific retrieval).

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to get detailed info about a specific issue) and specifies the alternative input methods (issueUrl OR organizationSlug + issueId). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with sibling tools like 'search_issue_events' for broader searches.

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