send_event

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

The description discloses the auth requirement (TRIGV_API_KEY), which is important. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as idempotency (hinted at in schema), side effects, or whether the call is safe or mutating. With no annotations, the description could provide more context.

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 sentence that effectively conveys the core action and a critical requirement. No unnecessary words; it is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (some with enums) and an output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the essential purpose but does not provide additional context on when to include optional parameters or typical usage patterns. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Send a notification event to a Trigv workspace channel'—it does not elaborate on any parameters or their roles, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 verb 'Send', the resource 'notification event', and the destination 'Trigv workspace channel'. It explicitly distinguishes the tool's purpose despite no siblings, and the required API key adds context. No ambiguity.

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 sending notifications to a workspace channel and mentions a prerequisite (API key). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, though the context of sending events is clear.

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