list_comment_triggers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest first and each entry is joined with its linked flows, which an agent cannot infer from the schema. The native-trigger exclusion is also scope-relevant, though phrased in a way that takes effort to parse.

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 core scope is front-loaded in the first two sentences, which earns the opening. The third sentence is a single 30-plus-word clause with an aside in parentheses and a raw path reference ('/flows', 'mode native'), which reads as internal spec leakage rather than agent-facing guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly discloses the return shape (triggers plus linked flows) and ordering, which is what an agent needs before iterating. Pagination is handled by the documented starting_after parameter, so the remaining gap is minor; only the confusing native-trigger wording weakens it.

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% and each of the six parameters, including the two enums, is already documented in-schema. The description adds no filter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

First sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List comment triggers') and the second narrows the scope to 'Standalone comment triggers, newest first, each with the flows linked to it.' It is distinguishable from get_comment_trigger and from list_flows by the standalone qualifier, though the scope distinction is buried in a dense third sentence.

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 an implied when-not: flow-embedded 'native' triggers are excluded and live on /flows instead, which routes the agent in one direction. However, nothing says when to prefer this over get_comment_trigger, get_comment_trigger_stats, or list_flows, and no prerequisites or pagination guidance are given.

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