List triggers

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that each trigger comes with a one-line condition summary and that the default workspace is looked up once and cached. It does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or how filtering behaves, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short and front-loads what a trigger record includes, followed by parameter details. However, it is written as fragmented phrases ('Triggers with a one-line condition summary...', 'Container as public id...') rather than clear sentences, which slightly reduces readability.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, so return values and safety profile need not be covered. The description covers the required container parameter and workspace default well, but for a list tool with six parameters it omits useful context for filtering and pagination options like name_contains, type, limit, and offset.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the container format (public ID, linked destination ID, or API path) and workspace_id default/caching well. But it says nothing about type, name_contains, limit, or offset, leaving four of six parameters undocumented.

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 names the resource ('Triggers') and says each includes a one-line condition summary, implying a list operation. However, it never uses a clear verb like 'list' and does not distinguish this from gtm_get_trigger or gtm_create_trigger. The purpose is inferable but not stated with specificity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gtm_get_trigger or other list tools. The only usage-like information is about omitting workspace_id to get the Default Workspace, which is parameter guidance rather than tool selection guidance.

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