get_trigger_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' and 'persisted status'/'storage-of-truth' clearly signal a non-mutating authoritative read, and the return-field enumeration adds useful context, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or freshness/rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the returned fields. Efficient with no filler, though the second sentence is a somewhat long enumeration.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the response contains (status, watch mode, condition, target tab, owner, value, timing, attention), which is the main thing an agent needs. Given a simple read tool, it is largely complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'by id' selector but adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read the persisted status) scoped to a single trigger by id, which naturally distinguishes it from the plural list_triggers and the mutating trigger/stop_trigger siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the 'one trigger by id' scope makes the boundary clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you already hold a trigger id and want its state. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion or comparison against alternatives like list_triggers or get_task_status.

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