list_triggers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the tool 'lists' triggers, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose how the optional parameters affect results, whether an empty result set behaves a certain way, what happens with invalid table/schema names, or any other behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. Missing some useful details, but that's a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue—the structure itself is appropriately tight.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose but omits parameter semantics entirely (0% coverage). A listing tool is relatively simple, so the description partially suffices, but the complete absence of param documentation is a notable gap for a tool with 2 undocumented params.

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 0%, meaning parameters (table, schema) are completely undocumented. The description does not mention these parameters at all—it doesn't clarify that 'table' filters by trigger's table or that 'schema' scopes the search. With zero coverage and no param guidance in the description, the agent must guess what these parameters do.

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 what the tool does: list triggers, indicating the table they belong to and the events that fire them. It has a specific verb (list) and resource (triggers), and adds detail about what output includes (table and firing events). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but siblings are mostly different object types (tables, views, stored procedures), so context partly distinguishes them.

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 description implies listing triggers but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With sibling tools like run_select_query and get_object_definition, the description doesn't clarify when to use list_triggers vs alternatives. No mention of what the optional table/schema parameters do for filtering, which is relevant usage guidance.

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