list_triggers

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only and unbounded result-set behaviors are covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of pagination behavior, response format, sorting, or rate limits. Since the description provides no value beyond what the annotations give, the score is low; it is not contradictory, but it adds no transparency.

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 a single concise sentence—'List triggers in Zendesk'—that front-loads the purpose clearly. It is efficient and contains no filler. While it is very short, it earns its place as a minimal statement of purpose, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 is simple: it lists triggers with optional pagination. The schema documents the parameters, and the annotations cover safety and open-world behavior. The description lacks details like default page size, return shape, or any filtering, but for a straightforward list operation these are not critical. The agent can infer most of what it needs from the schema and annotations, but the description adds little beyond the obvious, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, meaning both parameters (page, per_page) are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not mention these parameters or add any meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. There is no extra semantic value provided by the description.

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 'List triggers in Zendesk' clearly states the verb (List) and resource (triggers in Zendesk). It is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_macros, list_automations) beyond the resource name, so it lacks the explicit scoping or caveats seen in higher-scoring definitions.

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. It does not mention when to prefer list_triggers over get_trigger (for a single trigger) or over search, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or use cases. The description simply states the action without any usage context, leaving the agent to infer.

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