get_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation ('get') but does not specify what triggers are returned (names vs. full definitions), whether any permissions are required, or how the server/database/schema defaults behave. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

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?

A single, clear sentence with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and easy to parse. It could incorporate a bit more context without sacrificing brevity, but the current form is appropriately minimal.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what the response format will be, any behavioral nuances, or situational context. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks critical information for confident invocation, making completeness inadequate.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented with its role (e.g., table, schema default dbo, server/database optional). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (get) and resource (triggers) scoped to a table. The phrase 'defined on a table' clarifies the exact subject, making the tool easily distinguishable from siblings like get_indexes or get_constraints, even without explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when it's appropriate (e.g., when exploring table metadata), or exclude scenarios where other tools would be more suitable. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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