trigger_action

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It adds useful details: direct triggering, no menu navigation, reliability, and avoiding modal menus. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of triggering the action or behavior when both name and text are provided.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and each sentence provides necessary information: what it does, why it is useful, and the invocation constraint.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: target identification and the at-least-one constraint. It could mention how to discover valid action names or what happens if no QAction matches, but those are not critical for basic correct invocation.

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?

Only pid has schema documentation, so the description must compensate for name and text. It does so by explaining that name is the objectName and text is the visible label, and by requiring at least one of them. It lacks details on matching semantics or precedence when both are given, but still adds significant meaning 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 states a specific verb and resource: trigger a QAction directly, with two clear identification methods (objectName or visible label). It also distinguishes itself from menu-clicking approaches, which separates it from siblings like click and double_click.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: avoid opening modal menus and reliably reach toolbar/menu actions. It also states the precondition 'Provide at least one of name/text.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it misses the highest bar.

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