List workflow triggers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds the scope 'across all workflows,' which tells the agent there is no per-workflow filtering at the top level, a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or output shape, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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 two short sentences: the first defines the resource and scope, the second gives a suggested use. It is tightly written and front-loaded with the essential fact, though it does not pack as much routing information as the strongest definitions.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description states the high-level scope but does not describe the response structure or pagination behavior. The schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, so the definition is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer the return format from the name and parameters.

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 100%, and every parameter (full, page, ordering, page_size, name__icontains) has its own description. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 identifies the resource as trigger definitions and scopes it across all workflows, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workflows and list_workflow_actions. However, the action verb 'list' only appears in the title/name, not in the description itself, so the description relies on those for full clarity.

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 'Useful for auditing what fires when' supplies a general use case, which loosely implies when this tool might be selected. It does not name alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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