list_input_triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the scoping boundary (only triggers on this one binding) and the inclusion of class and index in each result, which clarifies what the read actually returns. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering guarantees, but for a pure read that is a minor gap.

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 the core act and scope, then the workflow role, then the exclusion, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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, and the description compensates by inlining the return shape ({ count, triggers: [{index, class_name, display_name}] }). With scope, workflow role, sibling exclusion and return structure all present, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 both ctx_path and mapping_index are already documented, including the 0-based Mappings[] semantics. The description reinforces the addressing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (List) and resource (the triggers attached to ONE key mapping inside an Enhanced Input mapping context), and pins the addressing scheme to mapping_index. It also names the sibling that holds the other category of triggers (get_input_action), so the agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the read-back for add_input_trigger and the source of the trigger_index that remove_input_trigger consumes, which tells the agent exactly where it fits in a workflow. It also states the negative case: triggers on the InputAction asset itself appear in get_input_action instead.

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