get_trigger_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the meaning of returned status codes (TD, WAIT, AUTO), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires any particular instrument state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a zero-parameter getter, though the colon-style legend is slightly cryptic rather than structured prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it mostly does that. It lacks usage context relative to the many sibling getter tools, but for a simple zero-parameter status query the core information is present and not misleading.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter meaning, and the empty schema leaves nothing ambiguous to compensate for.

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 names the resource ('Trigger status') and explains the returned status codes, so an agent can tell it retrieves trigger status rather than trigger configuration. However, it omits an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not directly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_status or get_trigger_config.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools to consider. It only defines output values, leaving the agent to infer that this is the right tool when current trigger state is needed.

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