Read the trigger tree

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only through 'inspect' and contrasts with editing via wc3_add_trigger, but does not explicitly state it has no side effects. However, the language is clear enough that an agent would understand it is a read operation.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first explains the tool's function and what it reads, and the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the internal file, the kind of data returned, and the relationship to scripting. However, it does not describe the output format or structure, which might leave slight ambiguity for an agent expecting a specific JSON shape.

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 already provides a full description for the single parameter mapPath ('Absolute path to the .w3x/.w3m map file'), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it inspects the GUI trigger tree and lists the specific metadata it reads (categories, variables, per-trigger name, enabled, comment, action count). It uses a specific verb 'inspect' and resource 'trigger tree', distinguishing it from siblings like wc3_read_script (reads script) and wc3_add_trigger (edits script).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'GUI triggers compile to the map script — to change behavior reliably, edit the script (wc3_add_trigger).' This provides clear guidance that this tool is for inspection only, while wc3_add_trigger is for modifications.

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