shodan_alert_triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the word 'available' to suggest a fixed enumeration but provides no additional behavioral context. Since this is a simple read-only list, the annotation coverage is sufficient and the description modestly complements it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 simple parametric-less read-only tool with solid annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It lacks details about the output format or what constitutes a trigger type, but given the simplicity and presence of annotations, these are minor omissions.

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 the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the schema fully documents the interface, and the description adds no param details because none 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 the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'available alert trigger types.' It distinguishes itself from sibling alert tools (create, get, delete) by focusing on the enumeration of trigger types, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used to discover available trigger types, likely as a precursor to creating alerts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The use case is intuitive but not spelled out.

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