get_trigger_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and reveals that a trigger can be stopped, which is key behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, permissions, or the exact meaning of 'runtime state' (e.g., other states beyond stopped). For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a motivating example. Every word earns its place—there's no redundancy or excess. It balances specificity with brevity perfectly.

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 primary use case and leverages the output schema for return details, so it doesn't need to explain outputs. However, it doesn't guide the agent on prerequisites like calling list_triggers to obtain trigger names, nor does it mention any authentication or resource-location expectations. For a tool with three required parameters and no schema descriptions, more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (resource_group, factory_name, trigger_name). While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional context about their meaning, format, or relationships. This is a significant gap when the schema itself lacks descriptions.

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 the purpose: 'Get a single trigger's current runtime state.' It also differentiates from pipeline-run history by explaining that a stopped trigger won't appear there, which helps the agent understand the tool's unique value. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_triggers, so it isn't fully differentiated.

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 provides a concrete usage scenario: when a pipeline didn't run today, check if the trigger is stopped. It explains why pipeline-run history alone is insufficient, giving a clear 'when to use' signal. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario effectively guides the agent.

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