list-flow-triggers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only states what the tool does, not how it behaves (e.g., idempotency, pagination, ordering, side effects). Critical details like authentication, rate limits, or whether it returns all triggers are missing.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides follow-up guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 that this is a simple listing tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It conveys the purpose and a usage hint. However, it could be more complete by briefly noting the output structure or default behavior, but it is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—e.g., it doesn't explain that 'flow' is a GUID or how to find it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List a flow's triggers (name + type)', specifying the verb (list), the resource (flow's triggers), and what is returned (name + type). It is specific and unambiguous, effectively distinguishing from sibling tools which cover other operations on flows.

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 includes a direct usage hint: 'Use the trigger name with run-flow.' This tells the agent what to do with the output. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context of sibling tools and the nature of the tool makes it clear when to use it.

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