get_trigger_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a read operation ('read back') and hints that it returns a per-type set of query results, which is a useful behavioral signal. But it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or scope of what is read, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameter detail following. The enum list is long but earns its place given zero schema coverage. Structure is efficient overall, only mildly dense.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and both parameters are documented. What is missing is sibling differentiation/usage context, but for a read-back tool with full parameter coverage the definition is otherwise complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It enumerates the complete set of accepted trigger_type values (including COMMON and its sub-fields) and explains level_source with an example and the underlying query form. Both parameters are given meaning far beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read back the full configuration of one trigger type (all its queries)'. It clearly separates the read from the many set_trigger_* write siblings. However, it does not disambiguate from get_trigger_common, and by routing COMMON trigger-wide settings through this tool it overlaps with that sibling, leaving the boundary slightly ambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given relative to alternatives. The description never explains when to prefer this over get_trigger_common, get_trigger_status, or get_trigger_position, all of which are close neighbors. Usage is only implied by the parameter meanings.

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