get-table-triggers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a filtered set of triggers with specific fields, which is transparent about its read-only nature. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, permissions, or the format of the return value (e.g., array), leaving some ambiguity.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Returns only the triggers') and includes the essential detail of returned fields, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns and the input needed. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus siblings and any error/edge-case behavior, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 describes tableName as 'relational metadata', which is vague and potentially misleading. The tool description clarifies that it specifically returns triggers and lists the fields, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description compensates by correcting the schema's broad wording.

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 action ('Returns') and the resource ('triggers associated with a table'), and lists specific fields returned (source, description, sequence, type, active state). It distinguishes from siblings like list-triggers (likely global) and describe-trigger (single trigger) by the phrase 'associated with a table' and 'only the triggers'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-triggers or describe-trigger. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to 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.