list_triggers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't disclose pagination, sorting, rate limits, permissions needed, or response format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No unnecessary words or structural issues are present.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses critical context: behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature implied but not stated), output details, and usage guidelines. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more information is needed for effective agent use.

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%, with all three parameters (accountId, containerId, workspaceId) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying workspace context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter relationships or usage.

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 action ('取得します' - retrieve) and resource ('トリガー一覧' - list of triggers) with scope ('指定されたワークスペース' - specified workspace). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_trigger' (singular) and 'create_trigger' by focusing on listing multiple triggers. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_tags' or 'list_variables' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with siblings like 'get_trigger' for single trigger retrieval, or specify use cases (e.g., browsing vs. detailed inspection). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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