trigger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful asynchronous timing context ('on its next step') and the requirement that the job be running, but it does not explain whether repeated triggers queue, whether checkpoint saving overwrites existing state, or what happens if the job is not running.

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 wasted words. It states the action and timing efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a trigger tool, the description omits edge-case behavior such as what happens if the job is not running or whether multiple triggers interact.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps the enum values well by explaining that 'save' produces a checkpoint and 'sample' generates samples, but it leaves the 'job' parameter only implicitly defined as a running job identifier.

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 gives a specific effect: asking a running job to save a checkpoint or generate samples on its next step. It is clear what the tool does, though the generic name 'trigger' and lack of explicit sibling differentiation keep it from a 5.

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 phrase 'running job' and 'next step' imply when to use it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternatives like start_job or stop_job. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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