q402_redstone_trigger_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication via the Multichain API key and explicitly states 'no funds move,' which helps the agent understand safety and auth requirements. It doesn't mention additional behavioral aspects like data freshness or pagination, but for a simple list operation, these are not critical.

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 with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and return fields; the second sentence adds essential auth and safety context. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is listed, enumerates the data attributes included, and gives auth/no-funds context. Sibling tools are clearly distinct, and the description sufficiently answers what the tool does and when to use it.

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 fully describes the single optional walletId parameter (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The description provides no additional detail about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema already says 'Optional. Defaults to server default wallet.'

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 ('RedStone triggers on the user's Agent Wallet'), and enumerates the specific fields returned (feed, condition, recipient, amount, mode, armed state, fire history). This distinguishes it from sibling trigger operations like create or cancel.

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 clear context that this is a read-only listing operation for the user's triggers and notes that no funds move. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this before creating/canceling triggers,' the context makes the use case clear, and the sibling names (create/cancel) are obvious contrasts.

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