triggers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes the kinds of trigger relationships it detects, but omits essential traits such as read-only status, indexing requirements, performance characteristics, or how it handles unresolved symbols. This is a significant gap for a code-analysis 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?

The description is compact, front-loads the core purpose, and uses concrete examples without filler. It is slightly fragmented but every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 need not be explained, and the description adequately conveys the kind of trigger analysis performed. However, the lack of parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency leaves the definition only minimally viable for correct 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 0% and the description does not mention the required 'name' parameter or the optional 'path' parameter at all. The schema titles ('Name', 'Path') provide minimal hints, but the description adds no meaning beyond them, leaving the agent to infer that 'name' is the symbol and 'path' is a file path.

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 specific analytical purpose: identifying what causes a symbol to run, enumerating concrete trigger sources (route/event decorators, callback registrations, direct callers, owning class). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like references or dependencies, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage by framing the tool as answering 'what triggers what', which gives the agent a context for when to use it. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to alternative tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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