map_trigger_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the ownership constraint ('currently owned trigger handle') and the concept of 'sanitized bridge events,' which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not explain pagination behavior, ordering, or error conditions.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. The verb 'Page' is front-loaded, immediately conveying the action. Structure is excellent.

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?

With 3 parameters, an output schema, and no param descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'sanitized bridge events' are, how pagination works, or what the output schema contains. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks essential context.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The description mentions 'trigger handle' but does not describe the 'limit' or 'after_sequence' parameters. The term 'page' implies pagination, but no specifics. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to use the parameters correctly.

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 verb 'Page' indicates pagination, and the resource is 'sanitized bridge events for one currently owned trigger handle.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like map_trigger_list (which lists triggers) and map_trigger_get (gets a single trigger). However, 'sanitized bridge events' is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like map_trigger_get or map_trigger_list. The criteria 'currently owned trigger handle' is implied but not stated as a prerequisite. No mention of when not to use.

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