get_triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that triggers are monitored and enabled and that severity and state are exposed, which is somewhat useful scoping context, but it does not clarify filtering behavior, defaults, or result shape.

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 short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is telegraphic to the point of under-specification. The single fragment does not earn its place as a complete tool definition because it omits critical operational context.

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 four-parameter query tool with no output schema and only half of the parameters described in the schema, the description is too thin. An agent needs to know which triggers are returned, how defaults shape results, and how this differs from sibling problem-listing tools, none of which is adequately covered.

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 only 50%, and the description barely compensates. The phrase 'severity and state' loosely maps to min_severity and only_problems, but host and limit receive no explanation in the description, and the important default behavior (min_severity defaulting to warning, only_problems defaulting to true) is not surfaced.

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 (triggers) and some scoping attributes (monitored, enabled, severity, state), but it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It gives no differentiation from siblings such as get_active_problems or get_problem_events, so an agent cannot confidently choose it over them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The fragment implies the tool retrieves triggers, but nothing tells the agent whether this is for configuration review, problem triage, or severity filtering versus the sibling problem-oriented tools.

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