List Triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a sorted JSON array of trigger names and describes pagination via nextCursor. No contradictions; extra context is 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 structured with clear sections (<usecase>, <examples>, <what_it_returns>, <pagination>), each sentence is concise and adds value. Front-loaded with core 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?

With zero parameters and full annotations, the description still provides return type (sorted JSON array of strings), pagination behavior, and use cases. Output schema exists, but description augments it. Complete for this simple read-only tool.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's pagination note adds value but is not about parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 'List all triggers in the connected SQLite database.' with a specific verb and resource. The <examples> section distinguishes it from readQuery (used for trigger body), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 <usecase> section explicitly lists scenarios for using the tool (investigating side-effects, auditing trigger coverage, when user asks about triggers) and a negative example in <examples> advising against using it for trigger body retrieval, directing to readQuery instead.

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