get_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Get information' which implies a read-only operation, and lists some returned fields, but it does not mention any potential side effects, errors, or return format. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and includes an example. There is no wasted wording, and the structure front-loads the key information efficiently.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description is relatively complete for basic use. However, it lacks any differentiation from the sibling get_issue_with_stacktrace and does not explain the response structure, leaving some context gaps for an agent deciding between tools.

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 fully documents the single parameter issue_id with a description matching the tool's text. The description adds an example short ID ('PAYOUT-123') that is similar to the schema's example, but it does not provide any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 gets information about a Sentry issue by numeric or short ID, listing specific fields (status, event count, first/last seen). It is a specific verb+resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_issue_with_stacktrace.

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 like get_issue_with_stacktrace or get_event. It simply states what it does, without any explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, which is a gap given the similar sibling tools.

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