getTriggerDefinition

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

The annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a small amount of context: it returns the 'full definition/body' and requires a 'known' trigger. It does not contradict annotations, nor does it provide extra detail on errors or missing-trigger behavior.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the routing guidance is placed second. Every clause adds value.

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 read-only lookup by identifier, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what to retrieve and directs it to find identifiers when absent. Gaps are minor: it does not explicitly describe return format, missing-trigger behavior, or whether schema is optional, but the simple nature of the tool and the annotations reduce the burden.

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 only 25% (connection only). The description partially compensates by saying 'one known table trigger' and routing to describeTable for trigger names, which implies what table and trigger mean. However, it leaves schema semantics, the optional nature of schema, and trigger/table formatting details to be inferred.

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-resource pair: 'Return the full definition/body of one known table trigger.' It is clearly distinct from the metadata-focused describeTable, and the phrase 'table trigger' differentiates it from sibling tools like getRoutineDefinition or getViewDefinition.

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 second sentence gives an explicit precondition: use describeTable first when you need trigger names or compact metadata. It makes clear the tool expects a known, specific trigger, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs to decide between this tool and its sibling metadata tools.

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