list_triggers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It says 'List', which implies a non-destructive read operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, mention any permissions required, or disclose behavior like pagination or error conditions. The mention of 'current runtime state' adds some behavioral context but is more about the return content than operational 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?

A single sentence communicates the tool's purpose and output state without any redundancy. The essential information (scope and state) is front-loaded, making it quick to parse. No filler or unnecessary detail is present.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward list operation, the description covers the core requirements: what is listed and the nature of the state. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or any exceptional cases, but those are less critical for a simple list tool. The absence of usage guidance is already penalized elsewhere, so this dimension remains adequate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description adds no explanation of resource_group or factory_name. While the parameter names are self-explanatory in a data-factory domain, the description fails to clarify their significance, expected format, or how they affect the result, which leaves an agent to infer from name alone.

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 action (list) and the resource (every trigger in a factory), and specifies the key output (current runtime state with Started/Stopped). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_trigger_status (single trigger) and list_trigger_runs (runs, not triggers) without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_trigger_status or list_trigger_runs. The context of 'every trigger' implies a bulk listing, but there is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling.

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