trigger-app-event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosure, but it only says the tool 'asks the app to handle' an event. It doesn't reveal potential side effects, error behavior for unknown events, or any operational consequences, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second gives the crucial constraint, making every word valuable.

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 core purpose and the key constraint are present, and the exhaustive schema plus output schema fill in parameter/response details. However, with no annotations, the description doesn't cover behavioral context like failure modes or side effects of triggering events, making it only minimally sufficient.

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% description coverage for all 26 parameters, including 'event' and 'payload', so the description doesn't need to add much. The description reinforces that payload shape must match app documentation but provides no new parameter-level details 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 clearly names the action ('ask the app to handle') and the resource ('an app-defined automation or test event'), with an optional structured payload. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'events', so some differentiation is missing.

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?

It provides clear usage guidance by stating 'Call this only for event names and payload shapes the app documents,' which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and when it isn't. It does not mention alternative tools for non-documented events, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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