list_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default filtering behavior (only active/attention-state watchers unless include_terminal is set), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits permissions, ordering/pagination, and any explicit statement that this is a read-only operation.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The default behavior is front-loaded, followed immediately by the flag that modifies it and its purpose.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return content (trigger snapshots) and the default scope. It lacks detail on ordering, pagination, or the shape of each snapshot, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by documenting the default result set that the optional status filter and include_terminal flag operate against, and it gives a use case for include_terminal that the schema's terse description lacks.

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 ('List persisted trigger snapshots'), which clearly separates it from get_trigger_status (single status) and trigger/stop_trigger (mutations). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It explains the default scope (active and attention-state watchers) and the condition that changes it (include_terminal for 'audit or cleanup workflows'). That gives clear context for when the flag is appropriate, though it never explicitly contrasts with sibling list/status tools or states exclusions.

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