list_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what the returned data contains (e.g., trigger names, metadata, whether definitions are included), nor does it mention permissions or any other behavioral details. This is adequate but not rich.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and optional filters. Every word contributes value, and there is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 list tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. There is no output schema, so the agent must infer what the returned list contains; the description does not specify fields or clarify that trigger definitions are not included (which get_trigger_definition handles). This ambiguity is a notable gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'optionally filtered by schema and/or parent table' paraphrases the schema's filter descriptions and reinforces optionality, which is helpful but does not add substantive new information beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 specifies the tool's action ('List all DML triggers'), the resource ('DML triggers in a database'), and the optional filters ('by schema and/or parent table'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trigger_definition and other list_* operations.

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 use when the agent needs to list DML triggers and mentions optional filters, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_trigger_definition or state when not to use this tool, so it does not fully meet the 'when-not/alternatives' bar.

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