list_triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: 'not separately rate-limited' and the specific status/check-time/simulation summary fields. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the primary purpose, then safety/rate-limit, then routing to siblings, then return shape. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing all return fields: trigger_id, name, status, condition, last_checked_at, last_fired_at, last_result_summary, plus pagination metadata. Combined with complete parameter schema docs and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 describes all three parameters and their defaults with 100% coverage, including the status enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 specific verb and resource ('List all registered triggers') and enumerates the exact fields returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from lifecycle siblings like register_trigger and pause_trigger by contrasting with them.

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 explicitly provides alternatives: use register_trigger to add and pause_trigger to silence without deleting. It also conveys safety (read-only, non-destructive), telling an agent when it is appropriate to call this tool for evaluating trigger status.

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