trigger_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a behavioral trait: priority=3,4,5 only shows severe and above levels. It doesn't mention pagination, default limit behavior, or output format, but the output schema exists and the description adds the priority filtering behavior.

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 very short: one sentence plus a priority note. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The priority note is terse but meaningful. No wasted words.

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-query tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and one behavioral rule, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behavior beyond limit=20, or when to use search vs filter. The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds the priority filtering rule (priority=3,4,5 only severe and above), which adds meaning beyond the schema's enum list. However, it doesn't explain the relationship between priority and filter/search parameters.

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 states a clear verb and resource: '查询触发器列表' (query trigger list). It also adds a priority filtering note. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like item_get or event_get, though the resource 'trigger' is clear.

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 usage for querying triggers and adds a specific priority rule (priority=3,4,5 only severe and above). It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the resource-specific name and context make the primary use case clear.

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