get_trigger_source

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses that the trigger name is automatically uppercased and that the tool returns raw PSQL body or an error. However, it lacks details on potential errors beyond 'not found', authentication needs, or idempotency. Given no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context but not exhaustive.

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 brief, two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains the return value (raw PSQL body or error). For a single-item retrieval tool, this covers inputs and outputs adequately, especially given the clear relationship with sibling tools like list_triggers.

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 schema has two required params with no descriptions. The description adds meaning by specifying that 'database' should be a key from list_databases and 'trigger' should be the name from list_triggers (without the suffix), and it is automatically uppercased. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage effectively.

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 clearly states the tool returns the full PSQL source body of a trigger. It specifies the inputs from known sources (list_databases, list_triggers), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_procedure_source or get_view_source.

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 tells the agent to use database keys from list_databases and trigger names from list_triggers, providing a clear context for usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to differentiate from related tools.

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