List Triggers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should convey behavioral traits. It only states it lists triggers with associated attributes, but doesn't mention any side effects, resource usage, ordering, or safety characteristics. It's minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no fluff. Perfectly concise.

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 list-triggers tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but doesn't mention any additional context like ordering, filtering (it says 'all' implies no filtering), or whether it includes only user-defined triggers or system triggers. Slight ambiguity, but given simplicity, it's adequate. Not complete as it doesn't specify if it's read-only, but again, no annotations. I'd say 3.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain them. Baseline 4 applies since no parameters to document. The description correctly omits parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('all database triggers'), and specifies what is included (associated table, trigger type, status). This distinguishes it from siblings like describe-trigger, which presumably focuses on a single trigger.

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 implies this is the tool for listing all triggers, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It's clear it's an overview tool, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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