honeycomb_trigger_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of getting information, without detailing traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, with no wasted information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide behavioral context, usage guidelines, or details on return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (datasetSlug and triggerId) with their types and requirements. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter relationships or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Get information') and resource ('about a specific trigger'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what information is retrieved (e.g., configuration, status, history) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'honeycomb_trigger_update' or 'honeycomb_triggers_list', making it somewhat vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a datasetSlug and triggerId), contrast with 'honeycomb_triggers_list' for listing all triggers, or specify use cases like checking trigger details before updates. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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