trigger_test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still earns credit by clarifying that the probe neither fires the trigger nor mutates it, which matters because openWorldHint implies an external call that could plausibly have side effects. It does not mention latency, external-service failure modes, or whether repeated probes consume quota.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action, the one-shot scope and the non-mutating guarantee all appear before any trailing detail.

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 one-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, the definition covers what it does and what it will not do. The gap is 'show the result' — with no output schema, the shape of a probe result (pass/fail, latency, error detail) is left entirely undefined.

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% and the trigger_id field already documents that the id comes from trigger_list, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the qualifier that the referenced trigger must be active, which is a small but real constraint beyond the schema.

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 ('Run an active trigger's probe') plus the scope 'once now', which separates it from trigger_get (read config), trigger_activate (change state) and trigger_tune (adjust settings). An agent can tell from the sentence alone what this does and that it is a one-shot execution rather than a listing or mutation.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('once now' and 'without firing or changing anything') and an implicit precondition that the trigger must already be active, which steers the agent toward trigger_activate first. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so the routing logic has to be inferred rather than read.

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