trigger

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that acknowledge/deliver/act/dismiss are marking operations, and prune has a dry_run mode to preview before persisting. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with specifics like 'Set dry_run=False to actually persist'.

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 front-loaded with the overall purpose, then uses bullet points for actions and arguments, making it easy to scan. It is concise but covers all necessary details. Minor redundancy: the args section repeats action and parameter names, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

Given 6 parameters, multiple actions, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains all actions and parameters, and the output schema fills any return-value gaps. Lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for the agent's immediate use.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description bears the full burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter: action lists valid options, trigger_id is required for certain actions, trigger_type filters, limit for max results, dry_run and max_pending specifically for prune. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 manages proactive triggers and bounded-backlog pruning. It lists specific actions (pending, history, acknowledge, deliver, act, dismiss, prune) that define the resource and operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools which cover different domains like memory or conversation.

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 details each action's purpose (e.g., 'Get pending triggers', 'Mark trigger as seen'), which implicitly guides when to use each. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings or provide decision heuristics for choosing alternatives, which would elevate clarity further.

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