list_triggers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful domain context about what a trigger contains, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination behavior for a bulk listing.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the clarifying parenthetical pays for itself by defining "trigger".

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a conceptual level and the annotations cover the safety profile. Only result volume/ordering is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical explanation of trigger composition is a bonus, not a substitute for parameter documentation.

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 ("List all alert triggers") and then clarifies what a trigger is — "filter rules + channel destinations" — which is genuinely informative domain context. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_trigger or create_trigger, but "List all" versus a singular get is reasonably self-evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration path for triggers, while get_trigger handles a single one. However, the description never names an alternative or states when not to use it, so the agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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