np_query_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or whether there are side effects. It only labels the query without adding context beyond the schema's window and dedup parameters.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant content. It sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity, but as a one-phrase description it is efficiently structured.

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 description lacks an output schema and provides no usage context, leaving gaps about response contents and differentiation from sibling tools. The parameter schema is strong, but the description alone is incomplete for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (dedup and window_sec) having clear descriptions, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as a query for triggers sent to an organoid over a window, distinguishing it from trigger-sending tools like np_send_trigger. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Lists' or 'Retrieves'), relying on the noun phrase 'TriggersQuery'.

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 like np_query_spike_events or np_query_spike_count. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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