get_workflow_triggers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It implies read-only behavior ('Get'), adds a conditional requirement (workflowName for Standard SKU), but does not explicitly state side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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 two sentences highly front-loaded with the core purpose, includes conditional usage, and directs to alternatives. Every sentence is essential, no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the purpose, conditional parameter requirement, and alternative tools. It lacks explicit detail on the return format (e.g., list of triggers or single object) but is adequate given no output schema and the clarity of the tool name.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that workflowName is required for Standard SKU, but this is already stated in the schema property description. No additional meaning is provided 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?

The description clearly states 'Get trigger information for a workflow including last/next execution times,' specifying a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('trigger information'), and provides distinct details (execution times) that set it apart from sibling tools like run_trigger and get_trigger_history.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'For Standard SKU, workflowName is required' and directs the agent to alternatives ('Use run_trigger to manually fire a trigger, or get_trigger_history to see past executions'), clearly defining when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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