get_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a reasonable job by disclosing the return content (exception details, stacktrace, tags, context). It does not mention error behavior or authentication, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable and adds value over the tool name.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by return details. Every word contributes value with no 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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, and the description adequately covers its purpose and return value content. It is fully self-sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the event ID format and project slug examples. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond stating that the event is identified 'by project slug and event ID,' which is already present in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific Sentry event'), clearly identifying the project slug and event ID as inputs. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on a single event rather than lists or latest event.

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 implies this tool is used when detailed information about a specific event is needed, identified by project slug and event ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from list/latest tools.

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