Trigger Elicitation Request Tool

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

Annotations are all false and provide little signal, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only says a request is triggered, but nothing about whether it blocks, whether it is asynchronous, what side effects occur, or what happens after the request is made.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices precision.

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 tool, the main needed context is purpose and when to use it. The description gives only an ambiguous purpose and no usage context, and with no output schema, an agent has little to rely on for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters needing explanation. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add meaning to parameters that do not exist.

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 uses a verb ('Trigger') and names a resource ('a Request from the Server for User Elicitation'), but the phrase is vague and does little more than rephrase the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like trigger-url-elicitation or trigger-sampling-request, leaving the exact elicitation type unclear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any indication of prerequisites or when not to use it. The one-line description only implies a generic elicitation scenario and provides no situational context or exclusions.

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