get_triggers

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects (though likely read-only), or return format. Given the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide transparency.

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 concise with a single sentence. It wastes no words, but the brevity borders on under-specification. It earns a high score for conciseness but could be slightly expanded for completeness.

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?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description fails to provide return value details (no output schema). For a get tool, one would expect mention of what is returned (e.g., trigger names, definitions). Annotations are missing, so no safety context. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 states the action (Get) and resource (triggers defined on a table). It distinguishes from siblings like get_constraints or get_indexes by specifying a different database object. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar 'get_*' tools, but the resource name alone provides sufficient distinction.

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 (e.g., get_constraints for constraints). Implied usage is when triggers are needed, but no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. This is a significant gap for an agent to know the appropriate context.

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