List all workflow triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's only added behavioral note is the global 'all available' framing of the trigger catalog, implying results are not scoped to a single workflow; no auth or rate-limit context is given. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Short overall, but the title line 'List all workflow triggers' and the body 'Retrieve a list of all available workflow triggers' say the same thing twice, and the Immich operation/tag line is metadata padding. Front-loaded, yes, but a sentence is wasted on pure restatement.

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 list tool this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description never says what a 'workflow trigger' is or what fields the returned entries carry. An agent must call the tool blind to know what the trigger objects represent.

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 the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior the description could have clarified, and it correctly implies an unfiltered full listing.

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 ('List') and resource ('workflow triggers') with a global scope ('all available'), and the Immich operation line pins the endpoint (GET /workflows/triggers). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from sibling workflow tools such as immich_get_workflow or immich_search_workflows.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this should be called before creating/updating a workflow, or how it relates to immich_search_workflows or immich_get_workflow_logs.

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