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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: read-only, idempotent, zero side effects, Redis registry backing, TTL inspection, and the empty-array fallback when nothing is active. This is exactly the disclosure an agent needs for a no-annotation read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with clearly labeled sections and no filler sentences. Minor redundancy ('Safe, idempotent, read-only' plus 'Zero side effects', and 'Safe fallback' before the empty-array behavior) keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return shape; it does state the empty-array case and that remaining TTL is inspectable. It stops short of describing the populated trigger object, a small but real gap for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds the ownership relationship ('owned by the specified agent_id'), clarifying that the parameter scopes results to one agent's triggers rather than merely naming an identifier.

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 precise verb+resource ('Queries the Redis registry for all currently active in-memory triggers') and scopes it to a single agent_id. It also names the sibling it is not (cancel_alert for deletion, get_market_snapshot for market data), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE (after reconnects/session recovery, before creating triggers) and WHEN NOT TO USE with named alternatives (cancel_alert, get_market_snapshot). No inference needed to select this tool.

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