nexo_cognitive_trigger_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. It states it returns fired triggers and actions but doesn't specify if any state is modified. No information on permissions, idempotency, or consequences of invocation.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the core action stated first. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

While the description covers the basic functionality, it lacks details on the return format (structure of fired triggers and actions) and does not clarify what constitutes 'armed triggers'. Given the absence of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity.

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% with adequate parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: checking text against armed triggers and returning fired triggers with actions. This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on trigger lifecycle management (create, list, delete).

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 usage for evaluating triggers against input text, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative trigger tools (e.g., nexo_cognitive_trigger_create) or other cognitive tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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