np_query_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe what the returned data looks like, any side effects, or ordering/pagination behavior. The 'TriggersQuery' name implies a query, but the description adds no explicit transparency about safety or output characteristics.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the tool name and core function, and contains zero filler. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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 is simple with two fully described parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the core function but lacks details about the return format or any usage caveats. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, more context about what the query returns would improve completeness, but the basic purpose 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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (dedup and window_sec), covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema description coverage is high and no extra value is added by the description.

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 states the tool 'TriggersQuery: triggers sent to the organoid over a window', which clearly identifies a query operation for trigger data with a temporal scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like np_send_trigger (send) and np_query_spike_count/events (spike-related). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so a small deduction applies.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen over similar query tools like np_query_spike_events or np_count_spikes. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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