explain_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that cron evaluation is done by a built-in implementation honouring the day-of-month OR day-of-week rule, that next 5 run times are returned in UTC, and that it emits warnings about congested schedules and intervals under 5 minutes. It also surfaces the GitHub platform constraints (default branch only, disabled after 60 days inactivity). What it omits is the read-only nature and what happens for an invalid or non-workflow path.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause names a distinct capability rather than padding. The parenthetical about the cron implementation and the day-of-month OR day-of-week rule is dense but earns its place by explaining an easily-misread edge case.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the behavioural surface is well covered for a read-style inspection tool. The unresolved 'path' argument is the main completeness hole, since an agent cannot tell from the definition what to pass.

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 sole parameter is 'path' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — it does not say whether path is a workflow file, a directory of workflows, or repo-relative. For a single-parameter tool the description is the only place this could be clarified, and it isn't.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Explain in plain English when each workflow runs' — and enumerates exactly which trigger facets are covered (push/PR filters, fork behaviour, workflow_run chains, cron). It is clearly distinct from lint_workflows or job_graph by scope, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for understanding trigger configuration, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no exclusion (e.g. 'for validation errors use lint_workflows'), and no note on prerequisites such as needing a checked-out repo.

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