list_triggers

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'with details and dependencies' adds a hint of the output's content. However, it doesn't disclose any permissions needed, performance implications, or what specific details are included, leaving room for uncertainty.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List all triggers') and adds relevant scope ('with details and dependencies'). Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what 'details and dependencies' entails, but it remains vague. It also fails to clarify the schema-scoping behavior, leaving ambiguity about whether all database triggers are returned or only those in a specific schema. For a tool with a single optional parameter, the description is too thin to be fully self-contained.

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 for the single 'schema' parameter, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description's claim of 'all triggers in the database' conflicts with the parameter's default of 'dbo', creating confusion about whether the tool lists triggers across all schemas or just one. The description adds no clarity about how the parameter filters results, effectively reducing the value it adds beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('triggers'), making it clear what the tool does. However, 'all triggers in the database' is potentially misleading because the schema parameter defaults to 'dbo', implying it lists triggers for a specific schema rather than the entire database. It does distinguish from sibling list tools like list_tables or list_stored_procedures.

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 implies usage when you need to see triggers and their dependencies, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer the use case, but no proactive direction is provided.

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